Hello There, Guest!  

[OBG] Nature of Race (merged)

#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
 
Messages In This Thread
[OBG] Nature of Race part 1 - by Chuck - 2014-Dec-25, 21:33:36
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race (merged) - by Emil - 2015-Mar-29, 00:01:36
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race (merged) - by Meng Hu - 2015-Apr-03, 02:51:52
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race (merged) - by Emil - 2015-Apr-03, 21:50:35
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race (merged) - by Chuck - 2015-Apr-08, 13:23:31
[OBG] Nature of Race part 2 - by Chuck - 2014-Dec-27, 02:48:10
[OBG] Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2014-Dec-30, 23:58:10
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2014-Dec-31, 18:11:25
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-01, 00:20:51
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-01, 15:37:35
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-01, 23:36:17
RE: Nature of Race part 2 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-04, 07:01:40
RE: Nature of Race part 1 - by Emil - 2015-Jan-04, 07:27:12
RE: Nature of Race part 1 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-05, 18:57:40
RE: Nature of Race part 1 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-08, 00:15:45
RE: Nature of Race part 1 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-09, 01:16:53
[OBG] Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-09, 23:33:46
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-11, 04:16:31
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-11, 05:19:49
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-11, 05:51:03
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-11, 18:15:29
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-11, 18:39:54
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-11, 21:13:22
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-11, 23:47:15
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-12, 00:17:13
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Emil - 2015-Jan-12, 03:56:59
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-12, 06:47:22
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Emil - 2015-Jan-12, 18:31:23
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Duxide - 2015-Jan-12, 18:44:54
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-12, 21:51:03
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-12, 22:08:59
[OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-14, 04:25:25
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Duxide - 2015-Jan-14, 10:35:21
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-16, 21:34:48
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-17, 21:50:13
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-18, 02:46:31
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-18, 04:59:02
RE: Nature of Race part 2 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-18, 06:00:51
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-19, 03:19:58
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-19, 21:02:17
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-20, 18:45:25
RE: Nature of Race part 2 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-21, 02:21:31
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-21, 02:59:27
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-21, 03:00:44
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Duxide - 2015-Jan-21, 11:00:51
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-22, 00:06:32
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-22, 03:26:56
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-22, 06:12:47
Some comments - by Emil - 2015-Jan-23, 21:01:32
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Jan-24, 02:03:48
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-24, 06:57:50
Comments on version 3 - by Emil - 2015-Jan-24, 07:34:24
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-25, 05:19:51
RE: Nature of Race part 1 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-25, 07:14:06
RE: Nature of Race part 2 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-26, 02:29:36
RE: Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-26, 06:12:38
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Jan-28, 04:42:41
RE: Nature of Race, part 3 - by Chuck - 2015-Jan-30, 04:47:18
RE: Nature of Race part 1 - by Dalliard - 2015-Feb-04, 16:44:13
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 1 - by Chuck - 2015-Feb-12, 01:16:14
[OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-05, 22:39:52
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Emil - 2015-Mar-06, 01:33:45
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-06, 01:36:16
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Emil - 2015-Mar-06, 04:23:24
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-06, 22:05:46
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Emil - 2015-Mar-06, 23:43:06
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-06, 23:59:47
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 4 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-07, 00:16:16
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 6 - by Emil - 2015-Mar-07, 03:00:17
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-07, 22:28:41
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 4 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-08, 03:25:20
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 4 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-08, 05:51:23
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Emil - 2015-Mar-09, 03:27:19
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-09, 05:09:23
Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-13, 23:03:56
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 1 - by Peter Frost - 2015-Mar-13, 23:06:45
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 1 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-13, 23:12:43
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-16, 04:19:57
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-17, 00:07:49
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-17, 02:01:50
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by B.B. - 2015-Mar-19, 14:00:41
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-19, 17:21:11
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Emil - 2015-Mar-19, 19:19:17
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-19, 19:27:20
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Peter Frost - 2015-Mar-20, 05:18:27
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by B.B. - 2015-Mar-20, 13:13:56
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-20, 14:31:07
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-20, 15:45:47
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-20, 19:21:44
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Emil - 2015-Mar-20, 20:49:14
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Emil - 2015-Mar-20, 21:26:44
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-21, 17:51:14
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Peter Frost - 2015-Mar-21, 20:50:39
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-21, 21:49:27
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Peter Frost - 2015-Mar-21, 22:32:28
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-23, 02:14:31
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-24, 00:11:29
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Peter Frost - 2015-Mar-24, 22:31:05
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-25, 01:03:09
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Peter Frost - 2015-Mar-25, 03:05:50
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-25, 03:20:05
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Emil - 2015-Mar-25, 16:20:10
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-27, 22:49:39
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Chuck - 2015-Mar-27, 22:55:52
RE: [OBG] Nature of Race part 5 - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-28, 20:28:56
RE: Nature of Race Full Version - by Meng Hu - 2015-Mar-28, 21:00:38
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)