|
Racism
May 21, 2013 11:53:36 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 21, 2013 11:53:36 GMT 1
It was you who claimed you were Jewish! Now we find you were exaggerating your credentials. Au contraire, it was you who pointed out that the Jewish "race" is matrilineal.
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 11:26:17 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 11:26:17 GMT 1
I see. You want me to give you links explaining what genes are, what DNA is perhaps. An "authority" like Crick or Watson. Yet again, where you get this apparent sense of entitlement from that leads you to demand that other people go to the trouble of educating you, would be a mystery if it was in the least interesting.
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 11:28:16 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 11:28:16 GMT 1
It was you who claimed you were Jewish! Now we find you were exaggerating your credentials. Au contraire, it was you who pointed out that the Jewish "race" is matrilineal. Alas, there seems no way even for Jewish mothers to get by without the intrusion of that accursed Y-Chromosome.
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 15:46:58 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 22, 2013 15:46:58 GMT 1
I see. You want me to give you links explaining what genes are, what DNA is perhaps. An "authority" like Crick or Watson. Yet again, where you get this apparent sense of entitlement from that leads you to demand that other people go to the trouble of educating you, would be a mystery if it was in the least interesting. The word "race" and all its associations, predates the discovery of genes or the structure of DNA, so it is reasonable to assume that it has a meaning outside of molecular biology. The problem is that nobody seems to know what that meaning is. Since many people have been slaughtered on account of their "race", without a prior DNA test, and others have been prosecuted for making irrelevant reference to the "race" of a third party, that meaning is surely rather important. It therefore behoves those who think it is a useful term, to tell the rest of us what they mean by it, and how they determine it without a laboratory test. Otherwise, you might fall into the category that includes Tony B Liar, who introduced anti-terrorism legislation without defining terrorism - and nobody wants to be tainted by that association, surely.
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 16:34:46 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on May 22, 2013 16:34:46 GMT 1
The word "race" and all its associations, predates the discovery of genes or the structure of DNA, so it is reasonable to assume that it has a meaning outside of molecular biology. Indeed The problem is that nobody seems to know what that meaning is. Not so Many people understand what is meant by 'race' Do you have dificulty recognising an Irishman amnogst a group of Autralian aboriginals, or a Boer from a Zulu? Since many people have been slaughtered on account of their "race", without a prior DNA test, and others have been prosecuted for making irrelevant reference to the "race" of a third party, that meaning is surely rather important. Wel, I do not think that 'race' is all that important. It is there,and most people are aware of it, but to place importance upon it is mistaken and leads direclty to the problems you outline It therefore behoves those who think it is a useful term, to tell the rest of us what they mean by it, and how they determine it without a laboratory test. There is no behovement It is not generally important If you do not believe it exists then that is all right Just be careful wher you walk on dark nights in some areas of some countries, as your belief may suddenly be subjected to radical change
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 19:10:34 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 22, 2013 19:10:34 GMT 1
I see. You want me to give you links explaining what genes are, what DNA is perhaps. An "authority" like Crick or Watson. No, I did not ask for any of that. I know what genes and DNA are. I am simply asking you to back up your own assertion You said that you had already given the definition of race half a dozen times now. i wrote one single word "Where?", meaning I am not even asking you to reiterate your definition, simply point out to me where you put your definitions - one of them would do - so that I can read it!. I cannot find any (except the tongue-in-cheek one about a competitive race). Asking you to state where you said what you claim to have said is not asking for education. Let's be clear, we both know that you have not given any definition of race. So, given that there is no widely-accepted scientific definition of the word "race", let's move on from there. (By the way, that is not the same as saying that races do not exist. There is in fact no widely-accepted scientific definition of the word "life". But I still believe that living things exist.) I would rather that everyone forgot about race - but of course that might be ridiculously idealistic.
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 20:47:49 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 20:47:49 GMT 1
The word "race" and all its associations, predates the discovery of genes or the structure of DNA, so it is reasonable to assume that it has a meaning outside of molecular biology. I've already pointed out to you that this point is entirely groundless. Light and heat and nearly every other concept had "meanings" before a scientific understanding of their nature came along. I've given you its meaning - a meaning everybody but you and your fellow lefties understand perfectly well. What is it that you don't understand about it? So you think there is a meaning now? Do you not read the posts you're supposedly replying to? I've told you what everybody means by it. And I've proposed a hypothetical test that everybody would pass, including you, that shows clearly that it has a widely understood and agreed meaning. It doesn't need a lab test - but if one were done, it would confirm that everyone's understanding of what "race" means correlates perfectly well with gene distribution - because it's genes that determine phenotype and its variations. Everybody understands this. Why you don't, I have no idea. You don't understand what "terrorism" means, either?
|
|
|
Racism
May 22, 2013 21:00:01 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 22, 2013 21:00:01 GMT 1
I am simply asking you to back up your own assertion. You said that you had already given the definition of race half a dozen times now. i wrote one single word "Where?", meaning I am not even asking you to reiterate your definition, simply point out to me where you put your definitions - one of them would do - so that I can read it!. I cannot find any (except the tongue-in-cheek one about a competitive race). It's a grouping produced by proximate genetic relationship. It overlaps because of human behaviour geographical area and cultural identity. That's about half a dozen times now. Pay attention ffs! And don't smear me with your admitted incomprehension, please. No "given" about it. I see you've totally ignored the demonstration that I gave you, showing that there is a widely accepted definition, and it is indeed "scientific". That's not a "given" - that's just you ignoring what is given to you, politely and reasonably, when as usual you rudely demand it. I see. As I intimated, your problem is with the meaning of "definition" - nothing will ever satisfy you, because you fail to grasp how language works. FYI there is a perfectly widely-accepted definition of life - there are several, depending on what discipline you look at it from; none of them are contradictory, of course, but merely complement and expand on each other. No might about it.
|
|
|
Racism
May 23, 2013 8:16:39 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 23, 2013 8:16:39 GMT 1
Now you have invented a definition, but what I said was that there is no "widely-accepted scientific" definition. I put the words "grouping produced by proximate genetic relationship" and found no occurrences of that exact phrase. So I assume your definition is not the widely-accepted one.
The problem with your definition is that you could end up with hundreds of groupings within the human genotype. Your phrase might be a suitable definition of "genetic group" but where does that get us? It doesn't define when "genetic groups" become "races".
It is possible to produce a human classification system, using gene cluster analysis, which gives results broadly similar to the idea of races, but it involves selecting, from thousands of genes, certain groups of genes to identify different patterns. It could well be a scientific, genetic basis for defining race. But it is not widely accepted.
So there are several definitions of life depending on the scientific discipline - there is no single widely-accepted definition of life.
Although there is no single widely-accepted scientific definition of "race", it is of course true that people tend to categorise people in terms of race, by skin colour and other characteristics, and their attitudes to individuals of other races.
I think a more important consideration is culture ie the set of behavioural characteristics that different groups of people operate under.
|
|
|
Racism
May 26, 2013 2:27:12 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 26, 2013 2:27:12 GMT 1
Just what I've given you half a dozen times already. And there's no "invention" about it. That's what the word means - it's what it's always meant, long before any understanding of genetic inheritance came along.
Yeah - and you're mistaken. It's the above.
Are you some sort of android?
So? That's not a problem - that's the reality.
There's no absolute difference. It's like "living beings" and "animals".
Bollocks. The only people who do not accept it are people like you: people who are politically motivated to monkey around with perfectly understood grounds to scientific categorisations. Everyone else understands that differences between people and groups of people are entirely down to "gene cluster" analysis.
No - there are several definitons of life, none of which are contradictory. They are all "widely accepted". Some are more detailed and specific than others, that's all. It's merely a question of the overall conceptual schema any discipline operates under. You can say the same about any scheme of classification. We're dealing with words, which derive their meanings from the conceptual apparatus that defines them - we're building models of the world, making cuts in it that may or may not accord with what is actually there. The meaning of "molecule" means one thing to a physicist, another thing to a chemist - sometimes indeed they even contradict each other. That's not to say there is not a widely agreed meaning, still less is it to say there is no aspect of reality that is being distinguished by either.
I've given it to you. You have not disagreed that you would not be unable to follow the widely accepted definition. You have not diagreed that this widely accepted definition is not explicable on scientific grounds. So stfu, you daft bint! Or else kindly do me and everybody else the minimal courtesy of addressing the point made in the conversation, please! Don't just ignore it, and pretend you haven't been answered!
Oh, is it??! And how exactly do they do that, do you think? They just make it up, do they?
That's another question altogether - what you consider "important". Fortunately, most of us no longer evaluate science in this way, in the way of Stalin and Hitler. Most of us are merely interested in what reality is like, not what some person of whatever political beliefs dictates is "important" or not.
|
|
|
Racism
May 26, 2013 6:30:02 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 26, 2013 6:30:02 GMT 1
;D ;D ;D Now, here's a very very black pot indeed!
As it happens, I mentioned that example because it's a very famous point make by Thomas Kuhn in his landmark "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Page 50 if you want to look it up and check my "facts".
He describes how a distinguished physicist and an eminent chemist were asked whether a single atom of helium was or was not a molecule. "Both answered without hesitation, but their answers weere not the same. For the chemist the atom of helium was a molecule because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases. For the physicist, on the other hand, the helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum. Presumably both men were talking of the same particle, but they were viewing it through their own research training and practice."
Naturally, this famous quote, and the general point Kuhn was using it to highlight, has generated endless debate since. I think it's fair to say Kuhn's point has prevailed in those debates. The world isn't labelled with our scientific concepts, which we merely read off and thereby grasp its presumably God-given classification system. We invent our concepts, and project them out onto the world, in the hope of reaching some understanding of how it operationally behaves. And the meaning of those concepts is given by a whole underlying scheme behind them (often hidden beyond our explicit awareness, indeed) : in this case the atomic theory, and various theories and elaborate concepts and even habitual ways of thinking dictated by the grammar (we tend to think of nouns as substantive, for example) we use, understood from two differing vantage points.
|
|
|
Racism
May 26, 2013 23:03:06 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 26, 2013 23:03:06 GMT 1
Obviously there is no widely-accepted scientific definition of race, mrsonde is clearly unable to provide one. Just to make my position clear, I really would rather there was a scientific definition of race, because I do prefer clarity of meaning. Yet I have done several searches to find such definition and cannot find it. If anybody here can find one, and present it, with link showing the authority for it, I will gladly reconsider. Here are the most relevant results from my searches "Any of several extensive human populations associated with broadly defined regions of the world and distinguished from one another on the basis of inheritable physical characteristics, traditionally conceived as including such traits as pigmentation, hair texture, and facial features. Because the number of genes responsible for such physical variations is tiny in comparison to the size of the human genome and because genetic variation among members of a traditionally recognized racial group is generally as great as between two such groups, most scientists now consider race to be primarily a social rather than a scientific concept.""Race, the way we have traditionally thought of it, is indeed a social construction. But whether racial groups are purely a biological myth is debatable. There are serious biologists who believe that race is a useful framework. Race may be a biological myth, but there is no unanimous consensus on this topic, and those who dissent from the position that it is a myth are not marginal cranks." Above is from blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/05/02/human-races-may-have-biological-meaning-but-races-mean-nothing-about-humanity/#.UaJ7O9gUP4ASee www.culturediversity.org/what%20is%20race.htm"Though many definitions exist, t here appears to be no established agreement on any scientific definition of race." "There are no genes that can identify distinct groups that accord with the conventional race categories. In fact, DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent. Moreover, geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes. Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.See book reviews in the following link www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished" Although race is void of biological foundation, it has a profound social reality." Note: American Scientist is the journal of the Sigma Xi foundation, whose members have included Einstein, Watson and Crick, and hundreds of nobel prize winners.
|
|
|
Racism
May 27, 2013 9:20:53 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2013 9:20:53 GMT 1
Your quotes in bold simply reflect the rise of political correctness trying to corrall science, fascinating. It's called "post modern" and supposed to be a GOOD THING.
Are you absolutely SURE you are not visitor?
|
|
|
Racism
May 27, 2013 17:49:04 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 27, 2013 17:49:04 GMT 1
One can only regret that (a) Thomas Kuhn's "eminent" physicist had been so poorly educated (he would have failed A level chemistry in the 1960s) and (b) that the statement of one physicist, however eminent, should be considered definitive of the working terminology of all of us.
Curiously, if there really was an important difference in usage between the two disciplines, one would have expected the answers to be the other way around. The absence of bonding between helium atoms makes it of little practical importance in chemistry, but very close to a "perfect" gas and of considerable value in applied physics.
|
|
|
Racism
May 27, 2013 18:31:16 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 27, 2013 18:31:16 GMT 1
Can anyone tell me what this means?
|
|