Hello There, Guest!  

[OBG] Nature of Race (merged)

#74
Section V-A is about the moralistic fallacy. I don't believe this section really deserves 2 pages. But you do what you want.

Your reply to Templeton is good, but I would appreciate if you write section "IV-I" instead of "IV" : "the ambiguous 75% rule of thumb, a rule which was discussed in section IV".

For your reply to Lahr (1996), I have nothing more to say, but perhaps you can refer to section IV-I, which talks about the 75% rule.

Your reply to Pigliucci & Kaplan (2003) is not satisfying. When they say "folk race" they must mean something like this :

Quote:There remains a broad consensus that current folk racial categories—those categories usually used on surveys, recognized by tbe U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and used on census forms and by U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA)—do not correspond to meaningful biological categories.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~cloughs/M...Kaplan.pdf

But what you say looks like nonsense to me; I don't see the argument you're making. You say something, but at the same time, nothing substantial, such as "they are only able to make this case by narrowly understanding the ecotype concept". Of course, you don't say what you meant by narrow understanding. Secondly, you cited Coyne's blog article "Are there Human Races?" on ecotype. But the only thing I read is this :

Quote:In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

I'm left with the impression that he uses races or subspecies and ecotypes interchangeably although it's difficult to tell. But whatever the case, reading the above quote does not help me to understand your point, when you say "they miss common ecotypic subspecies understandings, such as discussed by Coyne (2012)".

Ironically, what I believe could be an answer to Pigliucci & Kaplan was this passage from your section "Semantic Arguments" :

Quote:Given our concept of biological race, a reply to Malik is ready on hand: geographic ancestry, let alone continentally delineated group is not, in fact, synonymous with biological race; only when individuals from roughly the same geographic region descend from the same natural divisions do they belong to the same race; hence, the geographically defined sociological race of Asians in the US does not correspond to any biological one.

I do not understand why the entire critique of Pigliucci & Kaplan did not belong to "Folk Race Mismatch Arguments".

Next, the below paragraph, appearing just before the section "Panmixia Arguments" has a big problem :

Quote:In summary, these four arguments represent the prominent subspecies critiques of biological race. They are unsound because they narrowly equate biological race with the taxonomic category of subspecies and because they rely on qualification conventions or interpretations of these which are not commonly used in biology or which are selectively imposed in the case of humans.

Because I remember what you say in the 1st paragraph of section V-B. And it reads :

Quote:These can be subdivided into human subspecies, panmixia, population structure, and discordant cluster arguments.

In other words, the other paragraph "In summary, these four arguments ... imposed in the case of humans" is in the wrong place. Furthermore, you have added two sections : "Bio-statistical Arguments" "Folk Race Mismatch Arguments". So the above paragraph should be modified, and it's now 6 arguments, not 4.

Concerning the section "Panmixia Arguments" I believe the main idea has been already explained in section 2 (same thing with the section following this one) and I don't see anything new here. Also ...

Quote:While human races are not as genetically differentiated as Ostrich or Elephant subspecies, it is not difficult to find a plethora of species with unchallenged formally recognized races which are both phenotypically and genetically less differentiated than human continental divisions.

Can you cite a reference ?

Concerning the section "Bio-statistical Arguments" I read :

Quote:Rather, characters are correlated. This allows for increasing, not decreasing, accuracy when more traits are taken into consideration.

Is it the same argument as "aggregation reduces measurement errors and, consequently, improves accuracy of measurement" ?

Concerning "Cluster Discordances Arguments", I have nothing to say, since I agree. However, I think you can add "and different study samples" to this "Discordant clusters just mean that one is using imperfect data".

For section V-D, I think the sociological argument is hopeless. If you want to discuss it, fine, but I wouldn't waste my time on it.

Concerning V-D section, I don't understand the lumper-splitter controversy. If they think it applies to races, it also applies to anything else. I have heard that language classification (in american indian languages) also suffers this problem, yet I have never heard anyone saying that there is no language. Generally, the argument is just another version of the argument which says that if you don't know the exact number of races, there are no races at all. It's amusing that your single quote of Dobzhansky (1946) says it all ("There is no "true" subspecific level"), and yet the section V-D has a length of 6 pages.

In the same section, there is this passage that I don't understand. Too obscur... especially the last sentence.

Quote:Discussing one line of argument, Kaplan (2011) notes that one of the “main lines of argument against the biological reality of races” is that “what was meant by “race is biological” was a strong essentialist claim that we now know to be false, not just of human populations, but indeed of most biologically respectable populations”. To render this position otherwise: biological races are not real because “races” are biologically impossible entities.

Also, if the citation comes from "'Race': What Biology Can Tell Us about a Social Construct" (Kaplan 2011), I didn't find it in the paper. Same thing for this quote from your section "Folk Race Mismatch Arguments" :

Quote:Here is a rough summary of the main lines of argument against the biological reality of race: 3) the populations we identify as races in contemporary social discourse do not map neatly onto any legitimate biological populations (the mismatch argument see e.g. Root 2003).

I really think it's not the correct reference. If it's true, be careful to replace all "(Kaplan 2011)" by the correct reference. Also, I remember now there was a "(Kaplan 2010)" in section IV (which is absent in the reference list).

In section V-E, you noted :

Quote:From this perspective, nature can never determine a concept; it can never specify, for example, that species entails this and not that.

I can't agree more. A good comparison would be to say that history does not determine theories. It is theories that must be used to understand, interpret history. Some people fallaciously believe that history makes theory.

Concerning the section "Semantic Arguments", I have already commented on this, since it was previously incorporated in section 2 and not 5, and I didn't see anything wrong in the argumentation. You said that geographic ancestry does not determine biological race, and that the meaning of the race concept did not change over time, and that population can't be a substitute for race. All of these points are correct.

In section "Historical Mismatch Arguments", you rightly noted that "scientific concepts often involve evolving and shifting meanings". I can't say anything special about it. You illustrate that fallacy in a nice manner. An attack toward an old concept does not necessarily do any harm to the new concept. More importantly, I agree that some authors (Zack, 2002) have mischaracterized the old, historical concept of race by pretending that it assumes discontinuities when in fact, it wasn't the case. Instead, discontinuity has been used to determine species.
 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)