Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

#61
Thanks, I made most of the corrections.

Quote:
Quote:This could be a case of clever sillies, of intellectuals playing word games and stretching the bounds of reason to show off their aptitude; yet, unfailing passionate advocacy argues against a clever silly hypothesis (Charlton, 2012)1. What else? The early race debate sheds light on the matter.

There is also: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...9615000057

I read the paper. I don't think that the authors correctly understood the concept, since they consider clever sillies to be, at times, dogmatic.

Quote:Strange claims. Herrnstein was Jewish, Hsu is Asian. Why would they advocate white supremacy?

For deconstructionists that just testifies to the power of the ideology.

Quote:The fallacy of concluding something about a concept or idea based on its origin (in this case, not even the true one) is known to logicians as the genetic fallacy.

Yes, but the analysis is called a genealogical analysis.
 Reply
#62
All in all, this is a interesting and relevant. My biggest beef is that I don't like the long-winded writing style, but it is more a personal preference judgment.

Generally, it fits well with the previous installments.
 Reply
#63
(2015-Mar-06, 23:43:06)Emil Wrote: Generally, it fits well with the previous installments.


Yes, I probably could have cut out a few pages. Consider, though, that opponents of the concept write shelves of books to communicate their point. Could you check over section V? It deals with philosophical arguments. You might see a conceptual errors on my part there. After I do a little more editing -- and take a few more comments -- I will condense all six sections down to one mega-submission and resubmit that.
 Reply
#64
I think you need to remove the unecessary "us" "our" "we" when they suggest several authors. If you say "we can see" it's fine because several single authors use that and I see the "we" as involving both the author and reader(s). But otherwise, avoid that.

Concerning Section IV-I, you rightly noted that Fst values are misleading due to its (too) strong dependence on within population diversity, and you cogently remarked that Templeton is comparing apples and oranges when using mtDNA Fst for non-humans and RFLP Fst for humans, for the reasons you've noted. It's a good point, I think (although I wonder why you didn't email Templeton about it but were focusing only on the 75% rule standards in your mails).

Quote:This CD of 1.28, in turn, is equivalent to a Cohen's d, or difference in standard deviations, of about 2.58 (assuming normality and equal variances).

Perhaps you can explain a little bit how you arrived at this value (e.g., instead of dividing by the sum of the SDs, you SQRT the product of the two SDs). But more importantly, is it a common practice to convert CD into Cohen's d ?

Quote:and found, based on 71 cranial measures, an average Caucasoid-Negroid CD of less than 0.5; of the traits, only 15% had a CD above 1.0; these results were consistent with those reported by Sarich and Miele (2004), who ended up emphasizing the largeness of the differences relative to those between other primate sub-specific groups.

"largeness of the differences relative to" : which differences ? Maybe you should use "these" instead.

Quote:This found Hs value corresponds to an F/Gst value of ~0.05 based on our regression line using 24 subspeciated species

I would like you to explain this sentence. It's so obscure...

In general, I find that section hard to read. The whole thing involved answering the question of whether THR meet the 5 criteria listed by Mayr & Ashlock. You come to the conclusion that we cannot say that THR meet the criteria but that we cannot reject THR either, based on these arbitrary criteria. So, what's next ? Was that just to say that scientists shouldn't use these kind of arguments to reject THR ?

Concerning section IV-J, it's nicely made, probably the best answer to the critiques of the biological races. In particular, I don't understand why some people are so silly as to believe that if there are no races, this implies there are no racial genetic differences in behavior, personality, IQ, etc. The two issues are unrelated, and it is so evident that it is somewhat a shame that you need to explain that in length in order to make that clear. It would be as if you need stats to give the proof that deaf people do lack knowledge in doing IQ tests, compared to hearing people.

I particularly appreciate the distinction between total genetic differentation (using, e.g., Fst) and one related to a specific trait, e.g., height. The first does not allow us to infer anything about the second, or inversely.

The most important argument, I believe, is the one pertaining to effect size. Given Fst values, the between population variance is not small, given Cohen's d, it's large. And to top it off the between population variance is no lower than within population variance when taking into account within-individual variation (by far the largest variation) in one study you cite, which is a point rarely made (curiously) by the "anti-race" crusade. (By the way, concerning the formula you applied to convert Fst into d values, I will appreciate if you cite a reference.)

That said, this sentence is obscure :

Quote:That is, to the extent that congenital race differences are questionable, they are questionable not because race is an arbitrary social construct, but because (i) race is delineated in terms of a specific variable (typically geographic ancestry) and (ii) it is questionable that the trait in question would vary congenitally by this variable.

There is also that sentence that bothers me :

Quote:One might reiterate Loring Braces’ argument — which, we admit, we could never make sense of -- that there was some unique evolutionary selection against population differences in the particular traits under question.

Not just because of the unecessary use of "us" (or "ours") but more because the sentence suggests you have mentioned Braces' argument earlier, which wasn't the case, as far as I can see. I also believe the following sentence is badly written :

Quote:In the same way that no human populations could exist without heads, it could be argued that no human population could exist e.g., with a genetic propensity for time preference less than that of any other populations.

I think I understand the idea, but it took me a lot of time to understand it. This problems occurs quite frequently throughout the entire text. And not just section 4.

Quote:In this case, what is atypical about our socially recognized races that makes them unlike, e.g., educational groupings? Or: what is atypical about the deviations in question that makes it unlike typical deviations from the mean?

Here however, I do not understand what you mean in the above statements. The way you write things is sometimes obscure to me (unless it's my english again).

There is finally one thing I find regrettable is the absence of discussion about STRUCTURE analysis. I don't know much about the technique, but some people such as Ken Batai (in his blog anthrogenetics wordpress) believe that some studies which used that technique don't give the conclusion that favors race realists' position. The argument is that the results depends on sampling. Spencer (The unnatural racial naturalism, 2014) on the other hand said it does not do any harm to this view :

Quote:With that said, Tishkoff et al.’s results are concerning because we should expect B to arise at K = 5 if B is a human population partition. However, once one examines Tishkoff et al.’s sampling scheme, one will find that Tishkoff et al.’s results are non-threatening to Rosenberg et al.’s results. This is because Tishkoff et al. (2009) dramatically oversample African ethnic groups. African ethnic groups make up 65.1% of Tishkoff et al.’s sample, even though African ethnic groups make up just 30.2% of human ethnic groups. Combined with the known fact that most K = 5 human genetic variation lies within parts, not among them, it is unsurprising that a study that greatly oversamples one major geographic region will find that its ethnic groups split into different genetic clusters at K = 5. In fact, Tishkoff et al.’s result is not unique.

Friedlaender et al. (2008) sample human populations in such a way that Oceanian ethnic groups make up 48.6% of the sample, even though Oceanian ethnic groups make up just 18.5% of human ethnic groups. At K = 5, Friedlaender et al. (2008, p. 178) find that the partition consists of Caucasians, non-Oceanian Mongloids, Black Africans, and two distinct clusters of Oceanians! Of course, neither Tishkoff et al.’s nor Friedlaender et al.’s results conflict with the standard result that K = 5 human genetic clusters are Amerindians, Black Africans, Caucasians, East Asians, and Oceanians, because their samples of human ethnic groups are not appropriate for identifying worldwide human population structure. Rather, these samples are appropriate for studying African population structure and Oceanian population structure, respectively.

It seems to me that the results from STRUCTURE may remind us of what you can get from factor analysis, including CFA, where the modeled latent factors depend on the sampling of subtests. Yet, no one would never say that there is no speed factor because it fails to emerge when the battery of tests is composed of 7 verbal, 3 performance, 2 memory and 1 speed subtests. Or that there is no universal agreement that a speed factor will necessarily emerge or is a fundamental element in the structure of human intelligence. Yet, scientists are so prompt to say that there is no universal agreement on the number of clusters in human population.

I hope you will mention it somewhere in your text (footnote maybe, just after when you mention Rosenberg 2005/2011 in section IV-I) as way to counter the "anti-race" theorists. The above citation is also important with regard to Section IV-H where you cite Conley et al. (2014) saying that there are more variations among african populations than between african and non-african populations. Conley et al. indeed cited Tishkoff (2009) in support of their point of view.

Section IV-K :

Quote:This, though, does not imply that some of the known large cultural, national, and regional differences are not explainable in terms of genetic ones. It has been shown that in theory small individual level behavioral differences can amplify such to produce large population level ones (Dickens and Flynn, 2001);

It's curious you're citing that study, since it says that environments cause genetic effects by way of mutual causality. At the same time, you say that cultural effects are explainable in terms of genetic ones, whereas I think Dickens & Flynn would argue the opposite (genes are explainable in terms of environments). But don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with the idea expressed in this section, but I'm just surprised by the mention of Dickens & Flynn.

When you say :

Quote:frequency differences in specific behaviorally associated alleles can (statistically) explain some of a number of interesting national, regional, and ethnic sociocultural differences

I will appreciate if you say explicitly if these relationships are strong, or just small/modest.

Section IV-L :

Quote:readers are cautiously referred to Lynn (2008) (cautiously because the work is badly in need of updating 20)

20 We make this claim based on our own investigation of the data.

What's the use of saying this when the reader has no way of checking this out ? Also, remove the "our".

Quote:Generally speaking, global variance in intelligence exhibits a north south clinal pattern for indigenous populations. This pattern does not hold when it comes to recent (post-1500) global migrants (e.g., Europeans in Australia, N.E. Asians in Brazil, and S.S. Africans in North America). Since there is a high correlation between skin color/reflectance and measured ability (typically around 0.9), the distribution of the two can be thought of similarly.

I don't understand the whole thing, i.e., in what way the last sentence relates to the first/second sentence(s).

Quote:Secondly, the migrant and intranational data, while generally consistent with a non-trivial hereditarian hypothesis, is not compelling; groups which one would expect to do poorly not infrequently fair well.

Can you cite a reference or two ?

Finally, I may have things to say about punctuations and all that, but I will continue by email, because I think it's stupid to "spam" the thread with useless things such as "should be a comma, not a dot". No one want to read these useless, trivial conversations. Especially when there are many things to correct.
 Reply
#65
I will read it tomorrow.
 Reply
#66
(2015-Mar-07, 00:16:16)Meng Hu Wrote: I think you need to remove the unecessary "us" "our" "we" when they suggest several authors. If you say "we can see" it's fine because several single authors use that and I see the "we" as involving both the author and reader(s). But otherwise, avoid that.


I used "we" because there originally were -- or, at least, were supposed to be -- two authors. Replacing "we" with "I" would look silly, so I would have to rewrite a number of sections. If you definitely can not accept "we" let me know. If so, I will have to rewrite a number of sections or "locate" a co-author.

Quote:Perhaps you can explain a little bit how you arrived at this value (e.g., instead of dividing by the sum of the SDs, you SQRT the product of the two SDs). But more importantly, is it a common practice to convert CD into Cohen's d ?

The formula is: CD = (Mb-Ma)/(SDa+SDb), where CD=1.28. I assume that the population SDs are about the same. So we have: 1.28 = (Mb-Ma)/2SD, which is:
Mb-Ma = 2.56 SD. No?

Quote:
Quote:and found, based on 71 cranial measures, an average Caucasoid-Negroid CD of less than 0.5; of the traits, only 15% had a CD above 1.0; these results were consistent with those reported by Sarich and Miele (2004), who ended up emphasizing the largeness of the differences relative to those between other primate sub-specific groups.

"largeness of the differences relative to" : which differences ? Maybe you should use "these" instead.

Craniometric -- I will use "these".

Quote:
Quote:This found Hs value corresponds to an F/Gst value of ~0.05 based on our regression line using 24 subspeciated species

I would like you to explain this sentence. It's so obscure...

I rewrote this as: "The average Hs value was 0.72 (and so the maximum possible Fst would be 0.28). When Hs is plotted by F/Gst for the sample of 24 species, a Hs value of 0.72 predicts a F/Gst value of 0.05. Using Heller and Siegismund's (2009) regression line based on 43 species the same result is found. "

What I meant is that among non-human species a Fst of 0.05 is what one would predict given a Hs of 0.72.

Quote:In general, I find that section hard to read. The whole thing involved answering the question of whether THR meet the 5 criteria listed by Mayr & Ashlock. You come to the conclusion that we cannot say that THR meet the criteria but that we cannot reject THR either, based on these arbitrary criteria. So, what's next ? Was that just to say that scientists shouldn't use these kind of arguments to reject THR ?

It was to give a complete discussion of the matter. Nothing is next. Do you want me to rewrite it? Yes, it was a lengthily discussion, but I was trying to show that no matter how you look at the matter the subspecies issue is undetermined.

Quote:(By the way, concerning the formula you applied to convert Fst into d values, I will appreciate if you cite a reference.)

I didn't use "fst", rather I used "%variance", specifically Eta-squared -- see: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Eta-squared The formula is given in: Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). You can use the "converting effect sizes" excel (at the bottom) here: http://www.stat-help.com/spreadsheets.html. Note, I used typical interpretation guidelines. See: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions...tistically. An Eta-squared of 14% is about 0.81 SD.

Quote:That said, this sentence is obscure :

Quote:That is, to the extent that congenital race differences are questionable, they are questionable not because race is an arbitrary social construct, but because (i) race is delineated in terms of a specific variable (typically geographic ancestry) and (ii) it is questionable that the trait in question would vary congenitally by this variable.

How about?

" Of course, one can only argue against the existence of socially important genetic differences between biological races if one recognizes and defines biological race. The next step is to actually show that the said differences do not exist. It is not infrequently argued, though, that sociological races could not differ on account of being "socially" and not "biologically" constructed (e.g., Alland (2004)). As discussed in section II, this conclusion is an obvious non sequitur. Showing or claiming that sociological races do not correspond with biological ones provides no leverage in arguing that there are no significant genetic differences between them. This is because there obviously are socially important genetic differences between many socially constructed groups, such as social classes. "Social construction", then, necessarily can not be inconsistent with "genetic differences”. Groups obviously can be socially constructed around genetic differences. Knowing nothing else, one would treat socially constructed groups as arbitrarily constructed ones. The a priori probability that any differences between arbitrary constructed groups is a function of the heritability of the trait in the population (see Tal, 2009 for proof concerning individual differences).This is merely a restatement of the behavioral genetic default according to which group differences should be, knowing nothing else, assumed to have a genetic basis since genes condition differences between individuals within the population at large. To argue against this probabilistic reasoning, one must provide evidence that ethnic groups are not arbitrarily constructed -- that they are constructed in a manner such that there are no such differences or such that the existence of such differences is a priori implausible.

Were we to socially construct groups and then select ones for which there were appreciable differences in some highly heritable trait, it would be more likely than not that the between-group differences in that trait would be partially congenital. In the case of skin color: Argentinians versus Colombians; North Hemispherians versus South Hemispherians; Theravada Buddhists versus Mahayana Buddhists; wealthy Mexicans versus poor Mexicans. In some instances the group differences would be completely unrelated to genetics. Whether the majority of the pairs would exhibit genetic differences would depend on the precise population heritability estimate of the trait in question. But it is clear that social constructionism per se is not inconsistent with between-group genetic differences. Thus, when it comes to “race”, what is the argument? It can not merely be that races are socially constructed. It would have to be that races are socially constructed only around non-behavioral differences. But this begs the question. "


Quote:Not just because of the unecessary use of "us" (or "ours") but more because the sentence suggests you have mentioned Braces' argument earlier, which wasn't the case, as far as I can see. I also believe the following sentence is badly written :

How about?

"Another way to escape the reverse of the "too little variation" argument would be to reiterate a version of Loring Braces’ (1999) argument. According to this, since each population has an equal ability to use language and to develop culture they must necessarily not differ in behavioral traits such as intelligence. This type of argument, of course, is ridiculous when applied in context to normally distributed traits because within each and every population innumerous subpopulations exist which do differ in these traits. If these subpopulation which differ can exist then populations which exist can differ. Worse, it is already known that human populations do differ in the said traits; the debate is over “why” not “whether”. In short, the “too little variance” argument cannot be salvaged. To the extent that it is deemed to be valid it clearly fails to support the position in defense of which it has been enlisted."

Quote:This problems occurs quite frequently throughout the entire text. And not just section 4.

Point the passages out please and I will rewrite them.

Quote:The argument is that the results depends on sampling. Spencer (The unnatural racial naturalism, 2014) on the other hand said it does not do any harm to this view.. It seems to me that the results from STRUCTURE may remind us of what you can get from factor analysis, including CFA, where the modeled latent factors depend on the sampling of subtests. Yet, no one would never say that there is no speed factor because it fails to emerge when the battery of tests is composed of 7 verbal, 3 performance, 2 memory and 1 speed subtests.

Yes, there are at least two different arguments. You are correct that I didn't directly discuss this issue. How about:

"Box 4.1. Critiques of Unsupervised Cluster Analysis
A number of critiques have been made against the use of unsupervised cluster analysis to objectively delineate racial classifications. One is that cluster-analyses can not establish a correct level of genetic granularity; thus any level of analysis must be subjectively chosen. Another is that global genetic and morphological data bases such as 1000 Genomes, HapMap3, and W.W. Howells’ Craniometric Data Set are based on biased samples, ones which were collected with traditional racial classifications in mind. A third is that cluster analysis outputs heavily depend on the population data inputted; when one inputs data from different sets of populations one gets different results.

Regarding the first, it is correct that cluster-analyses can not establish a correct level of genetic analysis. This is as one would expect since there is no such level. One can look at genetic propinquity on a broad continental level or on a small regional one. In context to race, this has always been recognized. The same consideration holds with respect to taxonomic categories. For example, the level of genetic analysis that corresponds to "genus" is no more correct than that which corresponds to "species". Nonetheless, unsupervised cluster-analyses can provide objective grounds for preferring one level of intrapecific analysis to another given some notion of what makes for an ideal race, for example: degree of clusteredness, amount of genetic differentiation, and the genetic coherence of the divisions picked out. When unsupervised cluster analysis is run which automatically picks out a "best" level of analysis (e.g., fineSTRUCTURE and DAPC) or which generates results which allow one to do so (e.g., STRUCTURE), the TRCL has generally been shown to cut out divisions which are preferable given these pre-specified criteria (Dienekes, 2005; 2014). Regarding the second argument, one can not directly refute a hard form of this, according to which subtle and difficult to detect biases inevitably shape sampling decisions. One can only request that the argument is applied equally with respect to other scientific endeavors. If done, this would unveil the epistemic nihilism on which it is based. In response to a moderate version of the same argument, it can be pointed out that multiple data bases developed by different research teams for different purposes generate similar results. Moreover, the results are as one would expect given known historic geographic barriers to movement, for example, the presence of large deserts, mountain ranges, oceans, and so forth. The third point is superficially correct; the population data which one inputs into a cluster analysis program flavors the results. But this point only works as an argument against the TRCL insofar as one maintains, in accordance with the second argument, that global data bases are riddled with sampling-bias. As discussed above, there are good reasons for concluding otherwise."


Quote:It's curious you're citing that study, since it says that environments cause genetic effects by way of mutual causality.

What Flynn emphasized and what his model allows for are two different things.

Quote:
Quote:frequency differences in specific behaviorally associated alleles can (statistically) explain some of a number of interesting national, regional, and ethnic sociocultural differences

I will appreciate if you say explicitly if these relationships are strong, or just small/modest.

This is tricky because the effect sizes of the alleles themselves explain very little. The cross population frequency differences, though, can explain a lot. Maybe I should clarify this. I am not sure how I can be explicit because it depends on the traits in question. I cited a bunch of different studies. I will see what I can do though. How about the following footnote:

"The effect sizes of the alleles themselves explain little; but the patterns of frequency differences can explain a substantial portion of the phenotypic ones in the sense that the squared correlation between allelic scores based on multiple alleles and phenotypic scores is often moderate to high for some traits.

Section IV-L :

Quote:
Quote:readers are cautiously referred to Lynn (2008) (cautiously because the work is badly in need of updating 20)

20 We make this claim based on our own investigation of the data.

What's the use of saying this when the reader has no way of checking this out ? Also, remove the "our".

You are the one that asked me to provide a reference. Lynn's work is in need of updating. My reference is my own judgment based on my own analyses.

Quote:
Quote:Generally speaking, global variance in intelligence exhibits a north south clinal pattern for indigenous populations. This pattern does not hold when it comes to recent (post-1500) global migrants (e.g., Europeans in Australia, N.E. Asians in Brazil, and S.S. Africans in North America). Since there is a high correlation between skin color/reflectance and measured ability (typically around 0.9), the distribution of the two can be thought of similarly.

I don't understand the whole thing, i.e., in what way the last sentence relates to the first/second sentence(s).

The skin color distribution is clinal just like the IQ distribution. I changed this to: "Generally speaking, global variance in intelligence exhibits a north south clinal pattern for indigenous populations. This pattern does not hold when it comes to recent (post-1500) global migrants (e.g., Europeans in Australia, N.E. Asians in Brazil, and S.S. Africans in North America). Since there is a high correlation between skin color/reflectance and measured ability (typically around 0.9), the distribution of the two traits can be thought of similarly (i.e., both are clinal)."

Quote:Secondly, the migrant and intranational data, while generally consistent with a non-trivial hereditarian hypothesis, is not compelling; groups which one would expect to do poorly not infrequently fair well.

Can you cite a reference or two ?

In the text, I cite De Philippis (2013) and Fuerst (2014) which disccuss the matter. I added:

"groups which one would expect to do poorly not infrequently fair well (e.g., Fuerst (2014))"
 Reply
#67
Karl Boetel was not even an author, as his contribution was zero. And in your article, actually, there is only 1 author. You. And no one else. Have you seen this thread, by the way ? And what do you think ?

(2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41)Chuck Wrote: Mb-Ma = 2.56 SD. No?


Yes, I also found the same result earlier, but I'm more interested to know if it's a common practice or not.

(2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41)Chuck Wrote: You are the one that asked me to provide a reference.


Yes, true. But What I said is : "What's the use of saying this when the reader has no way of checking this out ?". I won't push the matter however. I don't have time for little details like these. I just wanted to say that it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't comment on your other replies because I'm OK with all of them (including the changes you've made), although I don't think my interrogation about what you mean by "the trait in question would vary congenitally by this variable" has been answered appropriately.

If possible, again, you should add a complete list of references. When I review papers here, I usually look at the references, and if I find something curious about what the author says, I read the references that he cites, but in your situation, I have to guess which paper you're referring to. And it's not always easy.

Concerning this :

(2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41)Chuck Wrote: Point the passages out please and I will rewrite them.


I will have to re-read the article once more, but I give you my approval in advance (to Part 4 at least). I will let you know if I find something, but I didn't remember it was important, because otherwise, I would have said it here.
 Reply
#68
(2015-Mar-08, 03:25:20)Meng Hu Wrote: Karl Boetel was not even an author, as his contribution was zero. And in your article, actually, there is only 1 author. You. And no one else Have you seen this thread, by the way ? And what do you think ?


I used "we" 71 times and "our" 23 times in section I, 94 times and 17 times in section II, 73 times and 10 times in section III, 103 times and 20 times in section IV, 102 times and 24 times in section V, and 65 times and 21 times in section VI. Whether or not you believe me, I wrote the piece under the true pretense of having a full co-author. It just did not work out that way. As it is, it would be very difficult to alter the tense. If you require this, I will dig up a co-author -- perhaps the original intended one -- who can contribute say one page to the end, who will approve everything else, and who will agree to make updated editions as needed. If this is what you require, let me know.

Quote:I don't comment on your other replies because I'm OK with all of them (including the changes you've made), although I don't think my interrogation about what you mean by "the trait in question would vary congenitally by this variable" has been answered appropriately.

I deleted this, so it doesn't matter.

Quote:If possible, again, you should add a complete list of references.

The references are here: https://osf.io/qjx2d/ They are now updated.

Quote:I will have to re-read the article once more, but I give you my approval in advance (to Part 4 at least).

I need your approval for the full thing. I will then request Frost's. After I will locate an outside reviewer -- though I am having trouble since I have been deemed persona non grata in some philosophy of science circles. I have been stigmatized as a "racist" and "white supremacist", presumably because my arguments are not shabby.
 Reply
#69
Some comments as promised. A day late due to time restrictions and traveling. I am home in Denmark again now. I will write some code for the Admixture project tonight hopefully.

Quote:racial constructionists, anti-realists, anti-naturalist, and eliminativists

pl.

Quote:Appiah (1986) tells us that the concept of race is evil:

If we can hope to understand the concept embodied in this system of oppositions, we are nowhere near finding referents for it. The truth is that there are no races: there is nothing in the world that can do all we ask “race” to do for us. The evil that is done is done by the concept and by easy—yet impossible—assumptions as to its application. What we miss through our obsession with the structure of relations of concepts is simply, reality.

In the quote, he says the concept does evil, not that it is evil.

Quote:Thus, even were we to arbitrarily set our criteria ...

I think it reads better with: "Thus, even if we were to arbitrarily set our criteria ..."

Quote:Generally, this distinction between biological race as a taxonomic category and as a more general type of classification goes back at least to Immanuel.

Missing Kant, unless you want to refer to him by first name only (odd).

Quote:As noted in that section, by at least some contemporaneous interpretations of this rule, including Smith et al.'s own multivariate one, THR races clearly meet the said criteria.

THR...? The human races? In that case, you have RAS Syndrome.

The problem is also found in some other parts, in that you use an acronym not defined in that part but in a previous part/edition. This problem will go away when you combine them of course (if the reader can remember all the acronyms!).

Quote:Of course, they are only able to make this case by narrowly understanding 'ecotype' concept.

Maybe add "the" (the ecotype concept).

Quote:There is a well know rule of thumb in biology called the One-Migrant-per-Generation Rule.

Quote:Philosophically, the problem with this "better characterized" argument is that it pits a race perspective against a ‘non-race’ perspective and ignores the possibility of seeing human variation in both racial and ‘non-racial’ terms. It represents a fallacy of excluded middle.

I wouldn't call this a fallacy. I say that as someone who spent years thinking about how to think about logical fallacies. Perhaps just call it a false dichotomy, that's less pompous and gets the same meaning across.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Quote:Unfortunately for this argument, it so happens that the characters of the said races, and of natural biological divisions in general, do not vary independently. Rather, characters are correlated, thus allowing increasing, not decreasing, accuracy with the number of traits taken into consideration.

This sounds confused to me, both the argument and the defense. Statistically, speaking, having uncorrelated predictors makes for a better model. Better predictive ability because for each each variable if it has any predictive ability, will add 100% of its predictive ability to the total predictive ability, e.g. multiple R in multiple regression.

In any case, you are of course right that various morphological traits covary, which means that one can extract latent variables which can be used to analyze population structure (as in the typical use of principle components by e.g. Sforza). If they did not covary, one could not use latent variable modeling. Perhaps Hu knows how this relates to clustering/classifying methods, it's not something I have researched in depth yet.

Quote:Properly understood, genetic clusters (the statistical output) evidence, to one degree of reliability or another, the number and type of molecular markers used depending, the presences of intraspecific natural divisions.

I think you are missing a present tense -s there. It is somewhat confusing to me that you use evidence as a verb. I have not seen that often or at all before.

Quote: Most studies of human variation begin by sampling from predefined “populations.”

Space.

Quote:About the same time that The Bell Curve was published, ogre naturalists, such as Philippe Ruston in Race, Evolution, and Behavior, made more sweeping claims to biologically grounded racial differences.

Ogre naturalists?

Rushton misspelled.

Quote:Let us put aside the fact that sociobiological differences were never tied to the race concept; while relevant differences were at times said to exist between certain human races -- but the races of other species? – and while at times these differences were said to be genealogically rooted – though there were always racial environmentalists – race was never said to entail such differences.

Double dash vs. thought dash.

Maybe rewrite, the sentence is 62 words long and has two embedded sentences/clauses. The paragraph also looked like a quote by the formatting, but appears not to be so (?).

Quote:If they intent to argue against the recognition of race

Quote:It is, of course, not sufficient to show that sociological races do not perfectly correspond with biological ones to show, in turn, that the biological ones, themselves, are not, in fact, biological.

Maybe delete themselves or in fact, otherwise you have a double interruption of this sentence.

Quote:The more these arguments appeal to extra biological considerations, the more they cease to be arguments against human biological races as such.

One word, perhaps with dash. Or better, non-biological.

Quote:As discussed in section III, this argument, if we grant the second premise, would work against “biological species” (and “races” in that sense) -- but not against “biological race” in the intraspecific sense actually meant by critics. It does not seem to us that we should even grant the second premise, though. Doing so renders unreal many familiar entities like “atoms”, “elements”, and “species”. The atom of today, not being indivisible, is, in an important respect, unlike Leucippus's and Democritus's atom; yet there is a family resemblance between the concepts -- both referring to small basic units of matter -- such that it is sensible to refer to both as "atoms” despite the meaning shift. Relatedly, what we now call elements (metals, metalloids, and non-metals) do not much resemble what were once called elements (earth, water, air, fire); the term "element" is yet reasonably currently employed to describe what it does because, as in the past, the referenced are basic units of substance that share similar properties. Whatever the case, since we are not defending e.g., the species concept this is another matter.

This is called the etymological fallacy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

Historical meanings, as you point out, have little relevance for current meanings. Another example is computer, which once meant 'a person who computes' (as a job), but which now refers to electronic devices that compute. It would be very silly to argue that computers can think because the original meaning of computer was humans who compute, and humans can think.

Also double negation. The atom of today, not being indivisible → The atom of today, being divisible...

Quote:In absence of a hidden premise, this argument would apply just as well to “spatial populations” and “demes” (Waples and Gaggiotti, 2006) or for that matter “clusters”. It would, by undercutting the conceptual legitimacy of that which are not said to be races, be a reductio ad absurdum. The argument maintains coherence with the unsaid premise that the concept of race -- unlike that of “population”, “deme”, or “cluster” -- is supposed to establish a “biologically preferable” or “fundamental” or “right” level of analysis -- that is to say, is supposed to allow for a “true” racial classification. But none of the above authors explain why the concept should entail what it never could.

Analogies would perhaps serve you well here. How many mountain ranges are there? How many oceans? How many continents? How many colors? -- be careful about answering that one, altho hopefully no one will argue that there are no colors!

All of these concepts depend on making an arbitrary decision about how much to zoom. However, once a zoom level is chosen, there is little room for disagreement of the approximate number given enough data.

Quote:it is “broad” races” all the way down

Three quotation marks.

Quote:this only work against race, in general,

Quote:“scientists, philosophers, laypeople – anyone really –“ are interested in.

Space missing.

Quote:Stolley (1999) would have been on firmer grounds if noted Nott’s “races”, which were species.

Seems incoherent.

Quote:Another line of argument, discussed in section III, runs: (a) once upon a time "race" referred to x type of (human) divisions, (b) we now know that x type of (human) populations do not exist, © we must be rigidly faithful to historic terminological usage and understand race now exactly as it once upon a time was, (d) therefore no (human) races exist.

The first problem with this line of argumentation is that scientific concepts often involve evolving and shifting meanings. For example, the atom of today, not being indivisible, is in an important respect unlike Leucippus's and Democritus's atom; yet there is a family resemblance between the concepts -- both referring to small basic units of matter -- such that it is sensible to refer to both as "atoms", and is false to claim that "atoms don't exist". As another example, what we now call elements (metals, metalloids, and non-metals) do not much resemble what were once called elements (earth, water, air, fire); the term "element" is yet currently employed to describe what it does because, as in the past, the referenced are basic units of substance that share similar properties. The second problem with this line of argument is that the “true” historical meanings of the term race are frequently fabricated. In section III, we discussed the case of the missing racial essences. Here we will briefly note two other claimed "true" historic meanings:

This was already argued earlier. Why is it repeated?

Quote:but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
 Reply
#70
Thanks. I apparently need an army of editors.
 Reply
 Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)