Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 29 30 31 32 33 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

(2015-Jul-30, 04:15:21)Krom Wrote: but the fact most biologists do not regard categories like "Caucasoid", or "Negroid" to be useful.


Could you point us to the surveys which show that most biologists do not consider such and such race concepts to apply meaningfully to modern humans?
 Reply
Note that Montagu in the 1970s seemed to have thought the human species is as old as australopithicines. He co-authored a book with Brace in 1977, entitled Human Evolution. In it Montagu sunk Australopithecine, Pithecanthropine, Neanderthal etc into a single human lineage, but as grades.

I don't get why you think "young species" = anti-racist. As far as I can tell the opposite is the case. The Recent African Origin model is defended by racists such as J. P. Rushton etc., so they can argue "whites" are more evolved than say "blacks".
 Reply
Quote:Could you point us to the surveys which show that most biologists do not consider such and such race concepts to apply meaningfully to modern humans?

Statement on Race proposed by the participants of the Scientific Workshop of the International UNESCO-Conference Against Racism, Violence, and Discrimination, June 8 and 9, 1995, Schlaining Castle, Austria

The following scientists participated in the workshop and accepted the statement
CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L., Stanford University of Medicine, California, USA
CHARLESWORTH, W., Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, USA
CHIARELLI, B., Intituto di Antropologia, Universita degli Studi die Firenze, Italien
DITTAMI, J., Institut für Zoologie, Universität Wien, Österreich
EIBEN, O., Department of Biology, Eötvös Lorand University, Budapest, Ungarn
FALK, D., Department of Anthropology, University of Albany, New York, USA
FREY, S., Laboratorium für Interaktionsforschung, Universität Duisburg, Deutschland
GABAIN, A. VON, Institut für Mikrobiologie und Genetik, Universität Wien, Österreich
GOODMAN, A. H., Department of Anthropology, Hampshire College, School of Natural
Science, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
GRAMMER, K., Institut für Stadtethologie, Wien, Österreich
JÜRGENS, H. W., Anthropologisches Institut, Neue Universität Kiel, Deutschland
KATTMANN, U., Didaktik der Biologie, Fachbereich Biologie, Universität Oldenburg,
Deutschland
MÜLLER-HILL, B., Institut für Genetik, Universität Köln, Deutschland
PREUSCHOFT, H., Abteilung für funktionelle Anatomie, Universität Bochum, Deutschland
RUDAN, P., Institute for Anthropological Research. University of Zagreb, Kroatien
SEIDLER, H., Institut für Humanbiologie, Universität Wien, Österreich
SJÖLANDER, S., Department of Biology, Linköpings Universitet, Schweden
TIGER, L., Department of Anthropology, University of New Yersey, New Yersey, USA

"«Races» are traditionally believed to be genetically homogenous and different one from the other. This definition was developed to describe human diversity associated e.g. with various geographical locations. However, recent advances in modern biology based on techniques of molecular genetics and on mathematical models of population genetics have shown this definition to be totally inadequate. Current
scientific findings do not support the earlier view that human populations can be classified into discrete «races» like «Africans», «Eurasians» (including «Native Americans»), or any greater number of subdivisions. Specifically, between human populations, including smaller groupings, genetic differences may be detected. These differences tend to increase with geographic
distance, but the basic genetic variation between populations is much less prominent. This means that human genetic diversity is only gradual and presents no major discontinuity between populations. Findings supporting this conclusions defy traditional classification of «races» and make any typological approach totally inadequate. Furthermore, molecular analysis of genes occurring in different versions (alleles), have shown that within any group the inherited variation among individuals is large, while, in comparison, variation between groups is comparatively small."

---

Note how all those leading biological (and anthropological) departments agree with what I have posted about traditional race concept.
 Reply
edits in italics.

(2015-Jul-30, 04:35:03)Krom Wrote: They either must be 1, 2, 3 to be useful, not necessarily altogether.


I don't understand this.

Quote:1 and 2 are similar: there is a lack of variation in the race so it is homogenous

Recall the discussion:

I articulated a meaningful sense in which races, so defined, were both real and natural. So you changed the issue to one of whether the race concept and/or its application to humans was "useful". I noted that it was useful for me. And I noted that a number of others employ race or race-like concepts.

I also pointed out that the "genetic population", "genetic cluster", and "biographic ancestry group" concepts as often formulated -- ones which clearly are seen as being useful by many -- are equivalent to the general race concept which I was discussing. And I noted that a number of race-critics have pointed out the same, arguing e.g.,

“It appears that many scientists do not even believe this distinction makes a difference; they have concocted a thinly disguised euphemism for race they hope will not stir up as much controversy. Geographic ancestry has not replaced race — it has modernized it.” (Roberts, 2011)

“Thus, though the “population” concept is touted as an advancement in freeing genomics from racial bias, it is merely a terminological mask for “race” in genomics… The language employed to talk about “race” without talking about it overtly then takes the form of racial euphemisms like “population.” (Williams, 2015)

Recognizing that if you granted that e.g., "biographic ancestry" groups are races "in a phony moustache and glasses" (Silverstein, 2015) you would have to concede the "usefulness" argument, you began to double down on your race-revisionist one. According to this, old time races were conceptualized radically different from our new time "biographic ancestry" groups or "genetic populations", defined as:

"Thus for purposes of gene discovery we can define genetic population using retrospective terms based on the concept of IBD:

Two individuals, I1 and I2, belong to the same genetic population if (a) their genetic relationship, measured with the coefficient of kinship, is greater than zero and (b) their kinship is much higher than kinship between them and some individual I3, which is said to belong to another genetic population."

Or population genetic races, defined as:

"In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are
genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races"

To establish the radical difference:

1. First you argued that races, as divisions of a species, were traditionally thought of as having platonic essences. I showed that this wasn't the case.

2. Then you argued that races as such were traditionally thought of as lacking individual variation. I showed that this wasn't the case.

3. Then you argued that races as such were traditionally thought of as lacking individual variation "in situ". I again showed that this wasn't the case.

4. Then you argued that races were traditionally thought of as being deeply discontinuous. I again showed that this wasn't the case.

5. Now you wish to argue that the differences between races per se was traditionally thought of as exceeding the differences between organisms within races. I noted that this is a complex issue and that I would like to come to an agreement about (1-4) before moving on to it.

Does that sound about right?
 Reply
(2015-Jul-30, 04:57:07)Krom Wrote:
Quote:Could you point us to the surveys which show that most biologists do not consider such and such race concepts to apply meaningfully to modern humans?
Statement on Race proposed by the participants of the Scientific Workshop of the International UNESCO-Conference Against Racism, Violence, and Discrimination, June 8 and 9, 1995, Schlaining Castle, Austria:

The following scientists participated in the workshop and accepted the statement
"«Races» are traditionally believed to be genetically homogenous and different one from the other. This definition was developed to describe human diversity associated e.g. with various geographical locations. However, recent advances in modern biology based on techniques of molecular genetics and on mathematical models of population genetics have shown this definition to be totally inadequate. Current
scientific findings do not support the earlier view that human populations can be classified into discrete «races» like «Africans», «Eurasians» (including «Native Americans»), or any greater number of subdivisions. Specifically, between human populations, including smaller groupings, genetic differences may be detected. These differences tend to increase with geographic distance, but the basic genetic variation between populations is much less prominent. This means that human genetic diversity is only gradual and presents no major discontinuity between populations. Findings supporting this conclusions defy traditional classification of «races» and make any typological approach totally inadequate. Furthermore, molecular analysis of genes occurring in different versions (alleles), have shown that within any group the inherited variation among individuals is large, while, in comparison, variation between groups is comparatively small."


The reason we like surveys is because it cuts down on selection-bias. I’m sure that a different crowd would have been drawn to a UNESCO-Conference For Race Realism, just as a different one was drawn to the 1998 Russian conference, "Race: Myth or Reality”, in which the 100+ participants at the conference concurred that the reality of racial subdivisions was supported by the totality of the scientific evidence.

But apparently you have no surveys to present. But as to the statement you cite:

1. "«Races» are traditionally believed to be genetically homogenous and different one from the other.

No not typically, if by homogenous we mean without intra-individual variation. We should clarify this term; I have been interpreting it to mean: more or less "of the same kind; uniform, identical, unvaried, indistinguishable, and unvaried”; but it can also mean “alike, similar, much the same” and so on. Meaning alike, yes members of races were thought to be alike, as they are, relatively. Anyways, assuming the former, it’s not surprising that they said this as they would have relied on unreliable narrative reviews, just as you do.

2. “This means that human genetic diversity is only gradual and presents no major discontinuity between populations. Findings supporting this conclusions defy traditional classification of «races» and make any typological approach totally inadequate.”

The same as above can be said, replacing “major discontinuities” for “homogenous”.

3. "Current scientific findings do not support the earlier view that human populations can be classified into discrete «races» like «Africans», «Eurasians» (including «Native Americans»), or any greater number of subdivisions.”

And yet cluster analysis allows one to do just this. One can create descrete cluster class sets where an individual is assigned to one race or another or to a mixed or undefined race. The research demonstrating this was largely done between 2000 and 2010, so the error is somewhat understandable.

4. "Furthermore, molecular analysis of genes occurring in different versions (alleles), have shown that within any group the inherited variation among individuals is large, while, in comparison, variation between groups is comparatively small”

They forgot to say “on average”, since this does’t hold for a number of specific traits or when using multivariate analysis. Also this doesn’t actually hold between some groups for some important loci; for example the SNP fst between East Asians and Africans is around 0.20. The variance between individuals would be half that within populations, so the ratio of between-individual to between groups variance in this case would be 1:2. Is that really comparatively small? Also, most people don’t think in terms of variance explained, but rather mean differences. The average difference between individuals in a normally distributed trait is 1.17 SD; a magnitude this size would be roughly equivalent to 22% of the variance. So when you have trait differences that approach 1 SD, they are not at all small compared to the average difference between individuals in a group.

Generally, I don’t see what you think you are proving by citing people that are wrong or are only right given some non-obvious understanding of their phrasing. So, yes, you have proved that a lot of people believe silly things about what races were thought to be.

I guess, rhetorically, the problem for you is that I know the primary literature well enough to know that many of these people don’t have a handle on it. I also have a long list of bloopers made by antagonists of race, whether they are prominent researchers e.g., Alan Templeton or not.
 Reply
(2015-Jul-30, 04:41:55)Krom Wrote: I don't get why you think "young species" = anti-racist. As far as I can tell the opposite is the case. The Recent African Origin model is defended by racists such as J. P. Rushton etc., so they can argue "whites" are more evolved than say "blacks".


Dr. Frost’s point is that much of the anti-racialists argument rests on the claim that between population variance is modest (per Sewall Wright’s standard). But a modest average Fst just indicates that divergence time was relatively recent e.g., 10 to 100k. Quote: "They "have shown is that Homo sapiens is a very young species that has branched out into many different natural and cultural environments over a short time frame.” This doesn’t tell us about the magnitude of specific differences which were under selection.
 Reply
(2015-Jul-30, 05:46:57)Chuck Wrote: Recognizing that if you granted that e.g., "biographic ancestry" groups are races "in a phony moustache and glasses" (Silverstein, 2015) you would have to concede the "usefulness" argument, you began to double down on your race-revisionist one.


I must take a couple of days off from this discussion to work on a paper which happens to employ the biological race concept as I define it. My colleague and I use it in contrast to sociological race, when looking at outcome differences. Now, how does this "usefulness" argument work exactly? If we find the concept useful and the calling of it "race" expedient for our research but some others do not for theirs then what? There is no such thing as useful in itself, just useful for him or her. You seem to be arguing that if the "majority" of researchers in certain countries do not find the term and/or concept useful, despite it being coherent and it referencing something in reality, then I can not. By a consensus gentium it can not be useful for me! This either makes no sense or assumes a strange epistemology/semiotics of science.

That said, I will be happy to pick up the discussion in a bit, since I appreciate your tenacious criticism.
 Reply
Your book concludes: "critiques of the race concept are largely motivated by moral moral-egalitarian, concerns" and denial of race: "deep sociopolitical factors might be promoting them".

Yet, look at your own position (which is political and biased), most your sources are connected to the far-right Pioneer Fund and Mankind Quarterly; conservative-political bloggers (e.g. Steve Sailor who you even quote), white nationalists, scientific racists (Rushton, Pearson, Lynn -- all again connected to the Pioneer Fund).

Are you really telling me "Human biodiversity" or "HBD" is not politically motivated?

The only supporters of your book right now are on Stormfront and other neo-Nazi sites. Just a coincidence?
 Reply
Your old site also used to advertise alternative.right.com and other white nationalist sites. In fact you seem to be none other than a white nationalist yourself.

You've since deleted your old site with its far right political ties to seem more neutral and credible, but it is all archived:
http://archive.is/c36GV

You aren't exactly fooling anyone.
 Reply
Quote:Human Varieties (HV) is a HBD website that posts pseudo-science and racist blog-posts.

The Nature of Race

John Fuerst (who posts as "Chuck" at HV) published a book called The Nature of Race. This book is quoted extensively on white nationalist and neo-Nazi websites such as Metapedia and Stormfront, as evidence "race" exists, is useful to understand human biological variation, and IQ differences between races are inherited.[1][2]

As of 2015, Fuerst describes his book as "peer-reviewed". In fact, the journal that published Fuerst's work, Open Behavioral Genetics (Open Psych) is an open access pseudo-journal founded by a university undergraduate from Denmark. A legitimate academic journal of course would not print this sort of junk.

Fuerst used to run the far-right blog Occidentalist, which had links to AlternativeRight.com and also advertised that website.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human_Varieties
 Reply
 Previous 1 29 30 31 32 33 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)