Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 11 12 13 14 15 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

(2015-Apr-03, 18:29:11)Chuck Wrote:
Quote:Remember, that you haven't replied to this comment :

(2015-Jan-18, 06:00:51)Meng Hu Wrote: One interrogation however concerns the section "II-A. Biological Race" and its subsection "A selection of Definitions of race from the 20th and 21st century" and specifically "2. Biological Anthropological". The four references you have cited seem not to describe the same idea. Or is it just me ?


Which ones?

Quote:I re-read Section II-A, and I have always the same impression. It's frustating. 10 pages of history of race thinking, and I didn't understand what you want to show us (the underlying message). Apparently, it has something to do with the fact that today, thinkers employ the term race in relation to subspecies while centuries ago it meant either species or subspecies. First, this was mentioned only at the end of the entire section, the consequences of that conclusion being not even explicited, and I got lost at the middle of my reading, so I recommend that you explain the purpose of this section at the very beginning of this section.

That's pretty rough. I mean what do I say?

The section was called "The Genealogy of the Concept". The should explain it. It was about the origin of the concept. And it was written in reply to Frost's claim that I was making the race concept seem to sensible. Hmmm....

Quote:
Quote:Others, such as Coyne (2012; 2014a; 2014b), define races as morphologically/genetically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry or which evolved differences because they once did.

I don't understand what's in bold.

Human races often don't live together. Some East Asians, for example, live in France, while others live in Hong Kong. This doesn't make them not of the same race. Coyne clarifies that contemporaneous allopatry is not the issue. Historic is. Hence they are groups "]which evolved differences because they once [lived in allopatry].

Quote:
Quote:In keeping with the etymology of the term “race” (e.g., mfr. razza “race, breed, lineage, family”) and with common usage in biology

This is probably a stupid question but what is mfr. razza ?

mfr. = modern French. I will change this to ""from modern French"

Quote:
Quote:While these are races, insofar as they are natural divisions, races are more than these as races include natural divisions cut out of a continua.

Races are more than natural divisions because they are natural divisions cut out of a continua ? I'm not sure what you want to say, but I'm sure this sentence is not the best way to clarify the idea. Your idea was that cluster analysis is still meaningful despite genetic continuity. This sentence, in my opinion, doesn't add anything to our comprehension.


No...my idea was that isolates are natural divisions, but they are not the only natural divisions -- regions cut out of a continuum are also races.

I will change this to: "While isolates, insofar as they are natural divisions, are races, race is a broader concept, one which includes natural divisions cut out of a continuum."
 Reply
(2015-Apr-03, 06:28:02)Chuck Wrote: Linnaeus was a species realist + creationist. He believed that god created the world and with it species/genus. Therefore "classes and orders" and everything above did not index genealogical relationship, evolutionary history, or anything in the world. These categories were the product of people artfully grouping (art) sets of species/genus (nature) by coincidental general resemblance.


Excellent reply. Really. If you feel like it, of course, you can add that complement in a footnote related to that quote.

One other thing that has bothered me with the sentence is that "art and nature" is followed immediately by "makes". Why the s ? And yet the sentence appeared exactly like this in the paper you have cited (Stamos ,2005).
 Reply
I updated the Full version with an unedited rewrite of section II-A. Please let me know if this reads better.
 Reply
Section 1 :

I don't have lot of things to say. This section deals with the definition of terms used in this field, and the disagreement about some thinkers (e.g., regarding natural kinds and the four taxonomic schools of race thinking). In my opinion, one of the most important argument was that taxonomy does not have any room in the concept of race and does not help to understand race (section I-G), for which Templeton failed to provide a rebuttal to your argument, as was suggested by your exchange with him (an illustration of a fantastic dialogue of the deaf). Finally, there is your argument that biological reality can be accepted and understood without the need of the acceptance of biological kinds, which would be impossible given evolutionary hypotheses. I just regret that you have made that latter point only in I-K. I hoped you could develop the idea a little bit more in, say, section I-D.

That said, I appreciate you have explained in an excellent way the difficulty of understanding intraspecific variation given the cladistic perspective of race. It wasn't that clear to me before (I am not familiar with cladistic races).

Quote:First, essentialism, in the Aristotelian sense, groups by formal natures which means both manifest – or phenotypic – structural similarities and the latent structural programs (formal natures as mover) which condition these manifest resemblances and which are transmitted across generations.

Honestly, "latent structural programs" appears like a coded language to me. Try to find something simpler, if you can.
 Reply
EDIT : I edit my comment because now that the 7 threads have been merged into a single one, some links don't work.

Section 2 :

In that comment, you blockquoted me and you did it wrong. Anyway...

(2015-Apr-03, 18:33:02)Chuck Wrote: Which ones?


The citation from Brues (1992) seems to say something very different from the other authors. Brues says that races (geographically separated) differ in allele frequencies and range of phenotype variation which are used to infer the probability of belonging to one geographic place versus another place. Now, consider Pearson (2002) and Sarich & Miele (2004). They are both talking about groups differentiated on the basis of phylogenically-related features. Both authors were talking about an intergenerational lineage. Probably the same is true of Hooton (1926) although it's written in a weird manner. But there is no element in Brues' citation that shows he meant it that way no matter how many times I've read it.

(2015-Apr-03, 18:33:02)Chuck Wrote: That's pretty rough. I mean what do I say?

The section was called "The Genealogy of the Concept". The should explain it. It was about the origin of the concept. And it was written in reply to Frost's claim that I was making the race concept seem to sensible. Hmmm....


You know... I never asked you to delete that section. I wanted to say that your article is a defense of the race concept, and I would like you to explain in what way the section II-A helps you to defend (and understand) your argument. I won't insist, but I prefer if you can.

(2015-Apr-03, 18:33:02)Chuck Wrote: Human races often don't live together. Some East Asians, for example, live in France, while others live in Hong Kong. This doesn't make them not of the same race. Coyne clarifies that contemporaneous allopatry is not the issue. Historic is. Hence they are groups "]which evolved differences because they once [lived in allopatry].


Now I understand why I couldn't make sense of the sentence. By "they once did", you meant "they once lived in allopatry". I don't understand why it was so difficult. I should have been more patient instead of panicking like a child...

(2015-Apr-03, 18:33:02)Chuck Wrote: No...my idea was that isolates are natural divisions, but they are not the only natural divisions -- regions cut out of a continuum are also races.


Didn't you write "Clusters, in this sense, then are not inconsistent with clines as when clines correlate when running along a continua. Unsupervised cluster analysis programs can identify populations when there are small genetic discontinuous; that is, they can identify isolates." ? That was the meaning of my sentence : "cluster analysis is still meaningful despite genetic continuity". Was it really ambiguous ?

(2015-Apr-03, 18:33:02)Chuck Wrote: I will change this to: "While isolates, insofar as they are natural divisions, are races, race is a broader concept, one which includes natural divisions cut out of a continuum."


I'm ok with your changes.
 Reply
Oops....


Attached Files
.pdf   The Objective view of race.pdf (Size: 465.01 KB / Downloads: 417)
.pdf   Forensic Diagnosis of Race.pdf (Size: 395.97 KB / Downloads: 557)
 Reply
MH:
Quote:The citation from Brues (1992) seems to say something very different from the other authors. Brues says that races (geographically separated) differ in allele frequencies and range of phenotype variation which are used to infer the probability of belonging to one geographic place versus another place. Now, consider Pearson (2002) and Sarich & Miele (2004). They are both talking about groups differentiated on the basis of phylogenically-related features. Both authors were talking about an intergenerational lineage. Probably the same is true of Hooton (1926) although it's written in a weird manner. But there is no element in Brues' citation that shows he meant it that way no matter how many times I've read it.


So one definition. It's from:

Brues, A. M. (1992). “Forensic Diagnosis of Race—General Race vs Specific Populations”. Social Science & Medicine. 34. (January): 125–28.

Here is the full quote:

"To the physical anthropologist, race is simply a phenomenon to be explained, as it is to the zoologist who sees the same kind of geographical diversity within nearly all widespread species. As a phenomenon, race is the fact that geographically separated populations differ in their gene frequencies and range of phenotypic variation, which therefore may be used to estimate the probability that an individual’s area of ancestry is more probably one place than another. If the characteristics associated with geographical races were produced by pleiotropic factors, in a way comparable to the determination of secondary sexual characteristics by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome, this would be a simpler task. But since the characteristics associated with race are due to multiple independent Mendelian units, part of the same system that determines individual differences, the assignment of an individual to a particular population
is based on truly multidimensional variation. "

The multivariate aspect in conjunction with the statement that the characters index (historic) regional ancestry indicates that we are dealing, more or less, with a natural division concept. I mean, we are not talking about the multicultural U.S. "race". We are talking about using correlated characters to distinguish between descendants of a historic European, African, and East Asian linebred populations. It's clearly implied that the racial characters are being genealogically transmitted. That said, Brues seems to have had a poor grasp of the history of the concept -- and she adopts an annoying fuzzy set population concept (implied, not stated) -- I discuss my beef with that in section III-A. But the argument made at the beginning of the Objective race paper is pretty good.

Look my argument isn't that everyone has been defining race as I do -- if they did I would't have felt the need to write the paper, but that the definitions of race specify or imply the core -- intraspecific natural division -- concept which I identify (by an analysis of historic and contemporary usages).


Quote:You know... I never asked you to delete that section. I wanted to say that your article is a defense of the race concept, and I would like you to explain in what way the section II-A helps you to defend (and understand) your argument. I won't insist, but I prefer if you can.

I didn't delete it; I reorganized it. Read the beginning/end of II A/B and beginning of II C. Generally, section II-A to, now, the beginning of section II-C, shows the historical continuity of the concept. It also provides background for the arguments made in section III-B and C and V-G, and the intros to section IV (section IV-A) and VI (section VI-A). Let me know what I can add to make the section read better and make more sense. I don't see why you don't see the connection between it and III-B/C and IV-A, etc.

I argue over and over again that the race concept was introduced to make sense of e.g., European-looking people born in the Americas. And that the same concept is needed today to explain the spatial tranferability of traits. Since I do this, it's reasonable that I elaborate on the issue.

Quote:Didn't you write "Clusters, in this sense, then are not inconsistent with clines as when clines correlate when running along a continua. Unsupervised cluster analysis programs can identify populations when there are small genetic discontinuous; that is, they can identify isolates." ? That was the meaning of my sentence : "cluster analysis is still meaningful despite genetic continuity". Was it really ambiguous ?

It wasn't clear to me.
 Reply
(2015-Apr-04, 01:59:22)Meng Hu Wrote: Section 1 :Finally, there is your argument that biological reality can be accepted and understood without the need of the acceptance of biological kinds, which would be impossible given evolutionary hypotheses. I just regret that you have made that latter point only in I-K. I hoped you could develop the idea a little bit more in, say, section I-D.


I will leave section I as it is. It is too tedious for most people as it is.

Quote:Honestly, "latent structural programs" appears like a coded language to me. Try to find something simpler, if you can.

I uploaded a new version. I changed ""latent structural programs" to "structural design". I edited section VI, the references, and section IV.
 Reply
Regarding section 2 :

(2015-Apr-04, 04:35:17)Chuck Wrote: The multivariate aspect in conjunction with the statement that the characters index (historic) regional ancestry indicates that we are dealing, more or less, with a natural division concept. I mean, we are not talking about the multicultural U.S. "race". We are talking about using correlated characters to distinguish between descendants of a historic European, African, and East Asian linebred populations. It's clearly implied that the racial characters are being genealogically transmitted. That said, Brues seems to have had a poor grasp of the history of the concept -- and she adopts an annoying fuzzy set population concept (implied, not stated) -- I discuss my beef with that in section III-A. But the argument made at the beginning of the Objective race paper is pretty good.


I have read the two Brues' articles you have indicated. I'm not convinced by your interpretation and I maintain that what Brues says is different than what the three other authors said. What I understand is that she predicts an individual's area of ancestry based on differences in gene pools. Brues talks about geographical belonging not genealogical transmission. It's not obvious to me that "It's clearly implied that the racial characters are being genealogically transmitted". I also don't understand the bolded parts of the text. But in the last sentence, Brues talks about the same thing, that is, "the assignment of an individual to a particular population". I don't see anything related to genealogy. What was the new information here ? You implicitly made your case about genealogy but even from the author that idea is not implicit. Even when Brues refers to Mendelian inheritance, this was in relation to "the assignment of an individual to a particular population".

I believe if you add Brues in "2. Biological Anthropological" along with Hooton, Pearson, Sarich & Miele, it will only add confusion. Honestly, I don't think you need Brues to make your readers understand what you meant. If you ask any other readers (try to ask Peter Frost) I think most (if not all) people won't understand Brues as you do.
 Reply
I edit my message because due to the merging of the 7 threads, some links don't work after the disappearance of the previous threads.

Section 5 :

First, I want to say something. About that :

Quote:(b) ecotypes (and hence races) are only superficially different from each other because they are usually selected for only a relatively small number of traits that are advantageous in certain environments. This means that races are nothing like phylogenetically divergent subspecies.

While you dealt with the second sentence, you ignored the first. Remember that his conclusion that "races are nothing like phylogenetically divergent subspecies" was based on the fact that "they are usually selected for only a relatively small number of traits that are advantageous in certain environments". He is probably referring to these paragraphs from their previous work (Pigliucci & Kaplan 2003) :

Quote:Rather, human evolution seems to have been marked by extensive gene flow. While this implies that there are not now, nor ever were, biologically significant human races that corresponded to populations that had been phylogenetically separate for some significant period of time (contra Andreasen 1998), it does not imply, as some authors have argued, that there can be no significant biological races in humans. As we saw above in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations. Templeton (1999), for example, notes that gene flow sufficient to ensure that distinct populations evolve together as a single species is compatible with the populations having distinct, genetically mediated, phenotypic adaptations. For example, he notes that there are populations of Drosophila mercatorum in Hawaii that ‘‘show extreme differentiation and local adaptation’’ yet have significant gene flow between them.

...

None of this should come as a surprise. The issue is not, as Gould and others have been fond of claiming, that skin color is only ‘‘skin deep’’ but rather that ‘‘skin color’’ is an ecologically important—not a phylogenetically significant—trait. If skin color had evolved only once, such that populations with different skin colors formed at least partially monophyletic populations, we would expect to find many other phenotypic differences associated with differences in skin color; some would be the result of different selective regimes, but some would no doubt be the result of, for example, drift. The reason that skin color is not well correlated with other phenotypically important features is, at least in part, that skin colors evolved independently several times, and often evolved in populations that were not genetically isolated from other populations (Diamond 1997)—similar skin color therefore represents not a shared ancestry but rather similar selective pressures.

I see you have already covered this issue somewhere else in your article (e.g., sections 2 & 4), but if you decide to ignore this bit of a sentence in your section V-B, you will be once again accused of selective reading. You should be careful about that.

Concerning your comment here :

(2015-Mar-29, 15:38:20)Chuck Wrote: He is clearly talking about Sesardic-like population genetic races and saying that these are not "ecotypes". He is also saying, in the same discussion, that "folk races" are not ecotypes. But yes, he could be making two separate points. But then he says: ... Again, he could still be making two separate points... but much "published scientific and philosophical literature on biological differences" (e.g., Lynn, 2008; Jensen, 1998; Rushton, 1995) concerns itself with Sesardic-like population genetic races. So here again Pigliucci (2013) seemingly equates Sesardic-like races with folk races.


It's a problem because, as I have said, Kaplan agrees with me : "By folk racial category, we meant just that. Folk racial categories are the sort of racial categories used by people in the U.S. in thinking about race in everyday life". If what you say about Pigliucci is right, that means in Pigliucci & Kaplan (2003), both authors employed the term "folk races" but were interpreting it differently !!

It bothers me that Pigliucci never replied to my mail. But I want to believe that both authors understand folk races the same way.

In any case, the bolded part of the above statement of yours is odd. That's how you interpret it (i.e., as referring to Sesardic-like races), not necessarily what Pigliucci is thinking about those studies by Rushton, Lynn, etc.

And even the citation from Sesardic is curious. Read it again :

Quote:it may well be that heterogeneous human populations indeed cluster into a number of distinct groups based on the multivariate genetic similarity, but it may still turn out that these gene-based clusters do not correspond to common-sense races at all. In that case, the colloquial racial classification would still be left with no support from biology: "While we argue that there likely are a variety of identifiable and biologically meaningful races, these will not correspond to folk racial categories" (Pigliucci and Kaplan 2003, 1161).

Ironically, empirical knowledge about race and genetic is advancing so fast that Pigliucci’s and Kaplan’s prediction was already refuted while the article with their bold claim was still in print.

First of all. What does Sesardic meant by common-sense races ? Here's another passage from the same Sesardic (2010) :

Quote:Sally Haslanger states that "our everyday racial classifications do not track meaningful biological categories". She explains: "there are no 'racial genes' responsible for the different clusters of physical or cultural differences between members of racial groups…" (Haslanger 2005, 266) Indeed, if our everyday racial classifications required the existence of some special "racial genes", any connection with currently accepted biological categories would be immediately lost. But since Haslanger gives no support at all for her claim that the common sense notion of race is inextricably linked with such a demonstrably false assumption, it is fair to conclude that she has actually done nothing to show that "our everyday racial classifications do not track meaningful biological categories".

Haslanger's definition is indeed close to what Kaplan sees it. And Sesardic, in referring to Haslanger, speaks about common-sense races. That does not seem to refer to the folk races that cut out natural divisions.

Having said that, refer now again to the previous Sesardic's citation, 2nd paragraph. He cites Rosenberg et al. (2002) against Pigliucci & Kaplan (2003) to say that it "makes it much more difficult than before to claim that race is entirely disconnected from genetics". Thus, I do not think Sesardic is defending a concept of race similar to yours.

Regardless, this issue is really annoying. I will send an email to Sesardic and ask him what he meant by common-sense races.

Finally, I have something to ask, although it concerns the entire article (not necessarily section 5). In most articles on this subject, the authors don't explain what is a "grain of analysis" as if it was obvious to everyone. And I don't remember you have explained that anywhere (including footnotes). Can you provide a short description ? Here's, for example, how Hochman (2013) explains it :

Quote:Here is what Rosenberg and colleagues found. With access to samples from 52 populations, Rosenberg and his team attempted to infer worldwide population structure at five different grains of analysis, using the multivariate statistical program STRUCTURE. The 52 populations were divided into seven regions: Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Central/South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and America. At K = 2, the roughest grain of analysis, where the program was set to distinguish two groups, the clusters were anchored by Africa and America. At K = 5, when the program was set to distinguish five groups, genotypes from Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia were clustered together, and those from the other four regions were clustered separately. At the finest grain of analysis, K = 6, the Kalash of northwest Pakistan were added as a sixth distinct cluster.

If the readers don't understand what is a grain of analysis, they can't understand the entire discussion about the "correct" and "fine" or "finer" grain of analysis (which is, by the way, the argument that Pigliucci (2013, pp. 273-274) advances against cluster analysis that assumes a particular level (K) of analysis).

P.S.: If you make corrections (that have nothing to do with typos) I want you to tell me which subsections (and ideally, the specific pages as well) have been modified in terms of the content. And I insist on subsections. I did not say sections. I don't necessarily want to read, e.g., section 4 entirely. I think I have read all of your sections (6th excepted) a lot of time already.
 Reply
 Previous 1 11 12 13 14 15 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)