|
Racism
May 21, 2013 6:22:56 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 21, 2013 6:22:56 GMT 1
Well, in my case, Russian military (the Jewish side - weaned on vodka (vide infra)) and Anglo-Norman farming families. Race?
And that's why the concept is flawed, or even dangerous. You can't use statistics to particularise from the general, only to generalise from the particular.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 7:30:11 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 21, 2013 7:30:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 8:34:29 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on May 21, 2013 8:34:29 GMT 1
To suggest that race does not exist is patemtly absurd (unless our 'race indusrty is a virtual industry)
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 8:44:25 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on May 21, 2013 8:44:25 GMT 1
Historically, the concept of race predates scientific genetics by centuries if not millennia. It is therefore wrong to attempt to classify a person's race by DNA analysis or to pretend that it has any scientific value. No it isn't wrong The concept of 'race' as with any other natural concept becomes strengthened (or weakened as the case may be) by the use of more precise measurment instrumnets or methods My question, several exchanges ago, asked for a definition of race, and I'm now going to insist that the definition can be traced to an origin that predates molecular genetics. I am sure tha you could find one yourself then you could test your finidngs against modern genetics I am also interested to know what evidence Mr S has for my "unusual inability to metabolise alcohol". It is worth checking the facts before making an assertion. Was he perhaps drunk when he made it? I do not know whether it is possible to obtain genetic swabs from intenet usage, but Mr Sonde is a very clever man
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 8:50:26 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on May 21, 2013 8:50:26 GMT 1
You can't use statistics to particularise from the general, only to generalise from the particular. You cannot use statistics to generalise from the particular rither as statistics is not concerned with particularities but generalities So you can only generalise from statistics However genetics is not soleley statistical anlaysis. It show particular variations which are classifiable. These classifiable variations help in the definition of race I think
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 9:30:31 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 9:30:31 GMT 1
Well, in my case, Russian military (the Jewish side - weaned on vodka ( vide infra)) and Anglo-Norman farming families. Race? Jewish side? You mean your mother. So you're half Jewish. Unless she converted for some reason? As for the Anglo-Norman part - that would depend on what you mean. Your father is half English, half French? I could give you the statistical breakdown, if you want - the chances that your genes derive from Saxon, Viking, Norman, etcetera ancestors: there's about an 80% chance, if you're English born, of them being predominantly pre-Roman. Where they came from is a matter of much debate at the moment - some from the Pyrenees region, some from the Balkans, and probably before that Anatolia. As I say - it depends how far in time you want to go back. It's neither flawed nor intrinsically dangerous. It's just a statistical fact, that's all. You don't use statistics to do either, actually. It's merely a measure of distribution in a sample, and thereby gives a measure of probability that any member of that sample will have whatever feature you've measured. Probability, not actuality.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 9:35:11 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 9:35:11 GMT 1
According to you, and possibly the author of an article you've found on the net. Exactly the same quasi-idealistic nonsense is spouted by a significant section of zoologists, and biologists, in their rejection of your notion of "species". No such distinction in reality, these liberal-left relativists pronounce. It's certainly not the one you give, to be sure: but most scientists in the field consider them somewhat crackpot, and prefer to classify forms of life by genotype, not arbitrary wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 9:39:50 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 9:39:50 GMT 1
To suggest that race does not exist is patemtly absurd (unless our 'race indusrty is a virtual industry) The problem is there's a section of academia - of a familiar political hue - who believe all concepts are arbitrary human inventions, whose meaning is not given by any application to what might really be in the world - there is no such "world", they think - but merely by the meanings of other words, sentences, beliefs, ideologies, etcetera. That's the real absurdity - this nonsense is just an example of it.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 10:03:25 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 21, 2013 10:03:25 GMT 1
According to you, and possibly the author of an article you've found on the net. Exactly the same quasi-idealistic nonsense is spouted by a significant section of zoologists, and biologists, in their rejection of your notion of "species". No such distinction in reality, these liberal-left relativists pronounce. It's certainly not the one you give, to be sure: but most scientists in the field consider them somewhat crackpot, and prefer to classify forms of life by genotype, not arbitrary wishful thinking. May I ask that we leave political point-scoring to one side and try to focus on science? I have stated that there is no widely-agreed definition of the term "race". Possibly I could be wrong about that, but the only way to prove me wrong is to give the widely-agreed definition of the term, showing where you got it from ie the authority which has made this the official definition.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 10:22:42 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 21, 2013 10:22:42 GMT 1
Which would explain why I always fall to the left after the first pint?
Possibly. But his categorical assertion of my alcohol tolerance implies that he is psychic too.
And whilst I have my pedant hat on
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 10:29:40 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 10:29:40 GMT 1
Which would explain why I always fall to the left after the first pint? It would do, if you did. It was you who claimed you were Jewish! Now we find you were exaggerating your credentials. Never mind - all you need to do is find a nice Jewish princess to marry and you'll have reconnected to the line.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 10:33:44 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 10:33:44 GMT 1
And whilst I have my pedant hat on I've made no such induction though, have I? On the contrary, I inferred a statistically valid deduction. If you'd been as advertised on the tin.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 10:47:04 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 10:47:04 GMT 1
According to you, and possibly the author of an article you've found on the net. Exactly the same quasi-idealistic nonsense is spouted by a significant section of zoologists, and biologists, in their rejection of your notion of "species". No such distinction in reality, these liberal-left relativists pronounce. It's certainly not the one you give, to be sure: but most scientists in the field consider them somewhat crackpot, and prefer to classify forms of life by genotype, not arbitrary wishful thinking. May I ask that we leave political point-scoring to one side and try to focus on science? No point-scoring - just stating the facts. The structuralists were from their inception completely tied up with and identified with the far-Left, and it was a politically motivated intellectual movement from the start. Knowing you from past conversations, that would depend on the specificity of what you mean by "widely-agreed" and "definition". I contend that it is "agreed" by most people who use the word, including those who do so in their various scientific fields, that it rests on proximate kinship relations, which are determined by genetic similarity. Ultimately this goes back to the family or clan level; over time, and with migration, such societies grow. But, humans being what they are - at least, until very very recently - those migrations tend to be slow, over many generations, and contained by boundaries that are not only geographically defended but also socially restrained. Clans and clan groupings tend to stay together to a determinable extent; they resist invasions, and infiltrations, and usually interbreedings with clan groupings outside of their territory and cultural boundaries. Thus you end up with large groups of related people, descended from common ancestors going back for many generations, living in a tightly controlled specific region. This has changed to a certain degree in the past few decades, of course. But not yet to anywhere near the extent that these identifiable genetic groupings have become dissolved enough to lose the scientific meaning of "race" - which is what these familial groupings are, and will remain, for a very long time to come. I have done, about half a dozen times now. But here's a quicker way: Imagine a line-up of half a dozen people, of either sex, and any age, all dressed the same and with no other form of identification other than their physical appearance. One is Chinese - not the nationality, he/she might have been born and lived all their life in the US; one is a black South African; one is a verified honest-to-goodness Sioux Indian. One is a Norwegian. One is a Pakistani. The remaining person is a Maori. Now, if I ask average moderately educated moderately intelligent persons - standard language-users - to point out, merely by appearance, the black South African from this line-up, I contend with a high degree of confidence that a correct identification would be made, at a very high level of statistical significance. I contend that all the other "races" would be similarly easily identified by those average persons of moderate linguistic competence. Furthermore, I contend that even you would have no difficulty making the appropriate identifications. Therefore, you understand full well what "race" means, and you know how to correctly apply the category concept in a real world setting. You do not need to do a DNA analysis - though if you did, you would confirm that your category identification turned out to be correct because there is indeed an underlying genetic reason that your criteria of appearance turned out to be reliable guides. If you deny that you or most people would perform in this successful manner in such an experiment, then I'm afraid there's really nothing more to say.
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 10:53:28 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2013 10:53:28 GMT 1
Before a much more interesting and fruitful conversation drops off the radar: are you going to answer my query, alan?
|
|
|
Racism
May 21, 2013 11:42:34 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 21, 2013 11:42:34 GMT 1
Where?
|
|