|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 16:59:51 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 4, 2013 16:59:51 GMT 1
Alan, can you do us favour and provide one for RACE (human classification) ? You still haven't explained what you find wrong with mine.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 19:44:20 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 4, 2013 19:44:20 GMT 1
I have not claimed to be the inventor of MRI (he is a personal friend). I have however worked with him on the design and optimisation of a couple of novel MRI systems, and have designed national primary measurement standards and consulted for the International Electrotechnical Commission ion a few subjects. I do not speak from ignorance.
The requirement for mesoscopic degeneracy to classical mechanics is rather fundamental to any physical hypothesis: if it doesn't explain everyday observation at the everyday level, it ain't right.
The quantised nature of x-ray emission and absorption is part of my everyday life (it determines the minimum x-ray dose required for a diagnostic image) as is the quantum behaviour of the proton spin vector in a homogeneous magnetic field (MRI). This week I am also working on some practical problems associated with the conversion of mass to photon energy in the annihilation of positrons. It's all great fun, and occasionally we manage to heal the sick through our efforts.
Karl Popper received an honorary degree (in philosophy) at the same ceremony where I was awarded my PhD in experimental physics. He is not a scientist, and never was. But my definition of scientific knowledge is an accurate precis of his.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 20:13:31 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 4, 2013 20:13:31 GMT 1
I have not claimed to be the inventor of MRI (he is a personal friend). I have however worked with him on the design and optimisation of a couple of novel MRI systems, and have designed national primary measurement standards and consulted for the International Electrotechnical Commission ion a few subjects. I do not speak from ignorance. Pleased to hear it. Well, that would include the entirety of quantum mechanics, would it not? Unless you have some top secret insider knowledge of some confirmed theory explaining the bridge? Giving a definitive account of the measurement problem, for just one example of what such a theory would have to achieve? Fine, but you've missed my point, I think. You don't need to be able to build this theoretical explanation in order to make MRI work, and more than you need to have a quantum mechanical description of light in order to discover radio waves, and build a worldwide network of transmitters and receivers making practical use of them - as we know from historical fact. Right? It's a very common and repetitive error for scientists working in the field to mistake the practical applications of a theory as evidence for that theory. Yes, it is. But that precis has been completely picked apart and shown to be a pipe dream, essentially. An over-idealistic description of how science works. That is - science, or any knowledge accumulation process for that matter, does not in fact work that way. Nor is it clear that Popper's analysis achieves any significant solution to the logical problems involved in the epistemological process involved in such accumulation - if such an ideal procedure actually occurred, it would circumvent the Problem of Induction, for example, but leave us with: what? Circumventing the Problem of Induction is no help if you still haven't arrived at a logical account for theory preference in terms of more true or less false. I'm afraid between them Kuhn and Lakatos have thoroughly demolished Popper's account. It was simply wrong. Wonderful, but wrong.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 7:07:17 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2013 7:07:17 GMT 1
Here is the definition of race given by Encyclopeadia Britannica (my underlining) race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century. The full article is at www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488030/race
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 7:11:13 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2013 7:11:13 GMT 1
I couldn't have put it better myself. The term has no widely-agreed definition and no predictive value.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 7:25:34 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2013 7:25:34 GMT 1
Ah, but you do! Spin resonance is an entirely quantum phenomenon, and without a reasonable understanding of it, you wouldn't expect to find it and you can't do the calculations required to design or even operate an MRI machine. Quite different from the empirical discovery and application of radio waves, for which a classical model is entirely adequate....up to a point. As you increase the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, so the importance of quantum effects increases, and like MRI, masers and lasers were designed ab initio from quantum mechanical considerations, not discovered by accident.
"Evidence for the theory" is unimportant and indeed unscientific. The quantum phenomena just mentioned derive from "explanatory and predictive hypotheses not yet disproven", i.e. what scientists call scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 7:42:33 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2013 7:42:33 GMT 1
I couldn't have put it better myself. The term has no widely-agreed definition and no predictive value. I like the way that you humbly consider that the team of experts at the venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica have come up with a definition that you deem to be just about as satisfactory as your own! But I wouldn't be surprised if mrsonde tells us that Britannica is run by a bunch of socialist lunatics, who thus decided to present a politically-correct definition.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 8:33:13 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 5, 2013 8:33:13 GMT 1
Here is the definition of race given by Encyclopeadia Britannica (my underlining) race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century. The full article is at www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488030/raceDoes this mean then that the inheritance of skin colour, eye colour. height , stature, head shape, facial features, limb length, imtelligence etc. has no genetic basis - that such features are entirely accidental with the astonishing result that whole groups of peoples accidentally have the same physical and mental make-up? If genetics is not the basis of race, then what is? To pretend that it does not exist is ludicrous as is this sentence: '“races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.' As if race is a European concept! Tell that to the Europeans that traded with China and Japan!
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 9:54:46 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2013 9:54:46 GMT 1
There is no doubt that genetically related individuals will have some common characteristics, and you could indeed choose a particular set of characteristics as defining a group within the entire set of humanity, but the fact remains that there is no consensus as to which characteristics define a "race", nor which characteristics if any, have predictive value or necessarily indicate genetic closeness.
Blue eyes and blonde hair are genetically recessive, so tend to appear in a fairly small gene pool, but the assumption that the next Finn you meet will be clumsy, stupid, or colour-blind, or that every blue-eyed blonde has Finnish parents, is invalid.
Genetics is the basis of genetics. Race is at best an arbitrary classification by apparently genetic characteristics.
It is typical of all animals that we tend to ally and associate with animals like ourselves, even within a species. Family associations dominate our behaviour and where hostility or dominance are important, all apes, dogs, whales and suchlike intelligent pack hunters side against those that are visibly different. To do this on an industrial scale, and in the absence of national uniforms, you need to communicate the difference to your allies, so we invent "race". I suspect the concept is a lot older than 600 years but its significance is political, not scientific.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 10:13:37 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 5, 2013 10:13:37 GMT 1
There is no doubt that genetically related individuals will have some common characteristics, and you could indeed choose a particular set of characteristics as defining a group within the entire set of humanity, Fine, so genetics can define race..... With the caveat..... but the fact remains that there is no consensus as to which characteristics define a "race", Well, ther is always disagreement in science, but as you say above genetics can define race, even if some people disagree nor which characteristics if any, have predictive value or necessarily indicate genetic closeness. So study of genes cannot predict that a new-born person will be black for example? If such characteristics are not contained within the gene set, just where are they? .... but the assumption that the next Finn you meet will be clumsy, stupid, or colour-blind, or that every blue-eyed blonde has Finnish parents, is invalid. Depends what 'valid' means. If you mean that the prediction will be 100% correct then that is invalid, but statistically it will be valid within a percentile Certainly the prediction will be more valid pertaining to a Nordic couple than it is to an Aboriginal Australian couple Genetics is the basis of genetics. Race is at best an arbitrary classification by apparently genetic characteristics. This conflicts with your statement abover 'that genetically related individuals will have some common characteristics, and you could indeed choose a particular set of characteristics as defining a group within the entire set of humanity'
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 10:59:39 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 5, 2013 10:59:39 GMT 1
It will certainly predict that it is unlikely to be black. Humans come in various shades of pinky-brown, but black or "black" is either a scientific term meaning "having the spectral characteristics of an ideal black body" (not a characteristic of human skin, though hair can get pretty close) or an arbitrary classification of people with mostly permanent dermal melanin. Unless, of course, they call themselves "brown", meaning that they may have more dermal melanin than some who call themselves "black" but their recent antecedents came from Asia rather than Africa.
Interestingly, albinism, though rare in humans, seems to be more common among "black" peoples than "white" peoples.
But if there is no agreement as to the definition, the word has no value. Nazi Germany and pre-Mandela South Africa had quite different legal definitions of race, which were signficant if you happened to be a Jew. AFAIK there is no definition of race in UK law, but all sorts of sanctions, and indeed an entire industry, based on its legal significance.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 12:41:14 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 5, 2013 12:41:14 GMT 1
It will certainly predict that it is unlikely to be black. So does that mean that in your clasification a 'black' person does not exist and hence no-one can be classified as black? You are resorting to deviousness (or gobbldegook) it seems I wonder why? But if there is no agreement as to the definition, the word has no value. Well there is plenty of agreement. Many of our laws are drafted with a defitniion of 'race' in mind; our institutions continually examine themselves to ensure that they practice no discrimination baseed upon this 'valueless' word So let's agree that there is plenty of agreement (and some disagreement) and that whether one agrees or disagrees the word has values that are almost universaly applied Nazi Germany and pre-Mandela South Africa had quite different legal definitions of race, which were signficant if you happened to be a Jew. AFAIK there is no definition of race in UK law, but all sorts of sanctions, and indeed an entire industry, based on its legal significance. Why you invoke avowedly 'racist' societies in support of your argument is beyond me The definitions of 'race'have nought to do with 'racism' except that 'racism' is commonly a derivative of race; indeed it is that very derivative that leads to the absurdly dishonest pretence that 'race' does not exist Definitions of race most certainly do exist in British law, else many of our laws are meaningless, and people are residing at Her Majesty's Service for no reason at all
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 14:53:51 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Jun 5, 2013 14:53:51 GMT 1
Those who insist that the idea of "race" is real should know that they are agreeing with all those wonderful racial awareness operatives, promoters of black culture, and black history month advocates - agreeing with them, that is, on the question of whether there are, in fact, races of mankind.
I ask you, what are your reasons for wanting to consider race? What advantages are there in grouping people by race? If you say "firstly because it is simply a fact that people belong to races" - well, as we have seen, there is some dispute about this, and anyway, that is not a convincing reason to want to classify people that way. For example, you could group people by, say, the size of their feet. Now it is really the case that people have feet, of certain sizes, and those sizes probably are governed by certain sets of genes, so the foot-size classification could be said to be "real". But the question surely is, why would you want to classify people that way?
Now I am not denying that there are races, but first we have to get our facts straight, so that we know exactly what we are talking about. I stated as far back as reply #31 that there is no widely accepted scientific definition of race. Nobody has been able to provide any such definition, so it really does seem that the idea of categorising humanity by race is not scientific.
Of course, you can choose a set of characteristics which you decide fit certain races, find the genes for those characteristics, and use DNA analysis to find those genes in individuals, and thus be able to categorise those individuals by race. But as I said, you could also decide to group people by foot size and use science to do that - first you decide (arbitrarily) what your foot size categories are going to be, then you find the genes that govern foot size, then you test the DNA of every individual you want to categorise in that way, then allocate the individual to the relevant foot-size group on the basis of the genes. But science does NOT accept the idea of these categories (either racial or foot-size groupings).
Again, the fact that science does not accept racial grouping is NOT the same as saying that races are not real! Think of countries. A country might be defined as a lump of land where the inhabitants live under the same laws. Now a country does have a basis in reality, there really is land there, there really are people living on the land, but a moment's thought tells us that a country is really a human idea. Laws are ideas in human heads. The boundaries of the countries are ideas in human heads.
Race is a human idea, of questionable utility. As I have said a few times, I sometimes do want us to maintain the idea of race. If somebody is murdered, I want the murderer caught, and if there is the killer's blood on the crime scene, I would really rather that the police were able to use science to investigate the DNA and tell us they are looking for a black man or a white woman, or whatever. But, after a quick look, I have been unable to find anything that indicates that this is possible. If anybody else can find such information I will be grateful.
DNA analysis, focusing on the male Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA, passed on solely through the female line, does give indications of ancestral groupings. But these do not accord with the idea of racial categories.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 15:39:42 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Jun 5, 2013 15:39:42 GMT 1
Those who insist that the idea of "race" is real should know that they are agreeing with all those wonderful racial awareness operatives, promoters of black culture, and black history month advocates - agreeing with them, that is, on the question of whether there are, in fact, races of mankind. Irrelevant I ask you, what are your reasons for wanting to consider race? Because it is self evidently true and to deny it is untrue What advantages are there in grouping people by race? Irrelevant If you say "firstly because it is simply a fact that people belong to races" - well, as we have seen, there is some dispute about this, and anyway, that is not a convincing reason to want to classify people that way. Yes it is. In just the same way as there are classes of anything, that in itself is reason enough to classify For example, you could group people by, say, the size of their feet. Now it is really the case that people have feet, of certain sizes, and those sizes probably are governed by certain sets of genes, so the foot-size classification could be said to be "real". But the question surely is, why would you want to classify people that way? Evidently footwear manufacturers are very interested is such classifications as are the Armed Services Now I am not denying that there are races, Then why argue against the classification? but first we have to get our facts straight, so that we know exactly what we are talking about. I stated as far back as reply #31 that there is no widely accepted scientific definition of race. Nobody has been able to provide any such definition, so it really does seem that the idea of categorising humanity by race is not scientific. No evidence has been presented to show that it has no scientific basis Are you suggesting that Africans have black babies by accident? Of course, you can choose a set of characteristics which you decide fit certain races, find the genes for those characteristics, and use DNA analysis to find those genes in individuals, and thus be able to categorise those individuals by race. You contradict yourself - you state that there is no scientific basis then you present a scientific basis But as I said, you could also decide to group people by foot size As is done already .... and use science to do that - first you find the genes that govern foot size, then you test the DNA of every individual you want to categorise in that way, then allocate the individual to the relevant foot-size group on the basis of the genes. Why on earth would anyone want to use such a silly procedure? Nevertheless it could (presumably) be done and a 'scientific' basis for foot-size established But science does NOT accept the idea of these categories (either racial or foot-size groupings). You have just shown that it can be done (at least theoretically)! Again, the fact that science does not accept racial grouping is NOT the same as saying that races are not real! You are in no position to say that science does not accept.You simply the position of some scientists Science, by definition, should accept 'reality' Think of countries. A country might be defined as a lump of land where the inhabitants live under the same laws. Now a country does have a basis in reality, there really is land there, there really are people living on the land, but a moment's thought tells us that a country is really a human idea. All classifications., scientific or otherwise are human ideas. I do not see your point Laws are ideas in human heads. The boundaries of the countries are ideas in human heads. Science hypotheses are ideas in human heads Race is a human idea, of questionable utility. I do not question the utility or absence of utility - that is irrelevant DNA analysis, focusing on the male Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA, passed on solely through the female line, does give indications of ancestral groupings. But these do not accord with the idea of racial categories. So it i snot genetic, but sheer accident, when a black couple produce a black baby?
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 5, 2013 17:42:19 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 5, 2013 17:42:19 GMT 1
"Race is a human idea, of questionable utility".
Now we get to it. Fascinating does not approve of discussion of "race".
Does she also eschew discussion of breeds of dog or species of plant for reasons of political correctness?
By the way, do she know of any "ideas" that are not human?
|
|