|
Post by fascinating on Dec 3, 2014 16:25:26 GMT 1
A China man is presumably a man from the country known as China. A Zulu is a man from the tribe known as the Zulus. I suppose there are hundreds of tribes in Africa; do you call each one of them a "race", or perhaps are they all of the same race?
Well, you might call them genetic groups, or you might call them families. You might want to call them races, but if you do, please explain why, and say exactly what you mean by the term.
Think about people in a village, obviously they are a "group" in that they live together. Now you could consider all of the people with brown eyes, showing that they have the relevant allele of the gene that determines eye colour. You could classify the brown-eyed people in the village as in a separate genetic group. But why would you want to group people by that gene, when there are thousands of other genes you might group them by? And would you call the brown-eyed people a separate race? If so, why?
You can have a group of black-skinned people, or a group of brown-eyed people, or a group of people with left big toes that are precisely 2cm long. The question is, why do you want to call any of these groups "races". Why do you want to classify them this way.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 3, 2014 16:47:25 GMT 1
A China man is presumably a man from the country known as China. Yes, but does he have no distinguishing characteristics that would allow one to identify him a man from the Country of China? A Zulu is a man from the tribe known as the Zulus. Yes ditto. Do you maintain that it is not possible to distinguish between the two? I suppose there are hundreds of tribes in Africa; do you call each one of them a "race", or perhaps are they all of the same race? I do not know Well, you might call them genetic groups, or you might call them families. You might want to call them races, but if you do, please explain why, and say exactly what you mean by the term. Any of these names will do - they all mean the same thing for classification purposes Think about people in a village, obviously they are a "group" in that they live together. Now you could consider all of the people with brown eyes, showing that they have the relevant allele of the gene that determines eye colour. You could classify the brown-eyed people in the village as in a separate genetic group. But why would you want to group people by that gene, when there are thousands of other genes you might group them by? And would you call the brown-eyed people a separate race? If so, why? All I am concerned with here is if it is possible to classify groups of people according to their physical characteristics and gene/DNA grouping You can have a group of black-skinned people, or a group of brown-eyed people, or a group of people with left big toes that are precisely 2cm long. The question is, why do you want to call any of these groups "races". Why do you want to classify them this way. Simply in order to define the meaning of 'race', that is all If you find the word 'race' offensive I would be happy to use your 'genetic groups', or 'families' which mean exactly the same in this context
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 3, 2014 17:18:10 GMT 1
You can have a group of black-skinned people, or a group of brown-eyed people, or a group of people with left big toes that are precisely 2cm long. The question is, why do you want to call any of these groups "races". Why do you want to classify them this way. Simply in order to define the meaning of 'race', that is all If you find the word 'race' offensive I would be happy to use your 'genetic groups', or 'families' which mean exactly the same in this context... You want to use the term race in order to understand what it means? A bit circular that, isn't it? You hope that by using a term you don't properly understand you will come to understand it? Fascinating has given you examples of 'genetic groups' - brown-eyed people, people with left big toes that are precisely 2cm long.Do I understand that you would be happy to call either or both of these groups races?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 3, 2014 17:42:46 GMT 1
If I see someone with coin-slot eyes, light brown skin and black hair, can I take it that he is from the country of China? No, he could be from one of the many Asian countries that are nearby China, where Chinese people in the past migrated to. If I see that man in London, it could be that he was born there and has never been to China.
But I will acknowledge that the great majority of the men in China have coin-slot eyes and light-brown skin. Are you saying that the people of China are a separate race? What about the people who were born outside of China, but with grandparents who did live in China? Are they of the same race?
You seem to have a very vague idea of what a "race". So it is NOT a scientific concept is it?
First I would ask why you want to classify people - but of course if you want to do that, you can. But it is NOT SCIENTIFIC, unless you state precisely what you mean by "families" or "races". I suggest it would be a bit weird to classify a group of husband and wife, with 2 children as a "race".
It is possible to divide the whole of the world's land area into things called countries. As humans we are free to do that if we want. But it is NOT SCIENCE.
I do NOT find the word "race" offensive, except for the fact that you won't tell us what you (or anybody else) mean by it, and in fact you don't seem to to know the meaning of it yourself! How about just dropping it entirely? But of course, if you want to use the term, for whatever purpose I don't know, that is up to you. But the Britannica article shows that there is no SCIENTIFIC meaning for the term when applied to humans. And you are obviously incapable of finding any science at all that defines what a race might mean, among humans.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 3, 2014 19:08:08 GMT 1
If I see someone with coin-slot eyes, light brown skin and black hair, can I take it that he is from the country of China? No, he could be from one of the many Asian countries that are nearby China, where Chinese people in the past migrated to. If I see that man in London, it could be that he was born there and has never been to China. But I will acknowledge that the great majority of the men in China have coin-slot eyes and light-brown skin. Are you saying that the people of China are a separate race? I am simply saying that in general people from China have shared characteristics that allow them to be identified as Chinese What about the people who were born outside of China, but with grandparents who did live in China? Are they of the same race? Certainly You seem to have a very vague idea of what a "race". So it is NOT a scientific concept is it? In Africa there are identifiably many races. The question that you asked is unanswerable as some tribes will be of the same race and others of a different race dependent upon the shared characteristics of the tribes First I would ask why you want to classify people - but of course if you want to do that, you can. Because it is a common usage But it is NOT SCIENTIFIC, unless you state precisely what you mean by "families" or "races". It is scientific if a large group of people can be identified as sharing a common gene/DNA pool It is possible to divide the whole of the world's land area into things called countries. As humans we are free to do that if we want. But it is NOT SCIENCE. Your response here is very silly I do NOT find the word "race" offensive, except for the fact that you won't tell us what you (or anybody else) mean by it[/quote] I have told you many times - it is the sharing of identifiable characteristics by a large group of people But the Britannica article shows that there is no SCIENTIFIC meaning for the term when applied to humans. No it does not The article gives the opinion of a body of scientists There is a body of scientists that disagree with that opinion And you are obviously incapable of finding any science at all that defines what a race might mean, among humans. Nonsense [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 3, 2014 19:29:34 GMT 1
In Africa there are identifiably many races. The question that you asked is unanswerable as some tribes will be of the same race and others of a different race dependent upon the shared characteristics of the tribes How then would one identify the groups one needed to study in order to test the hypothesis 'there is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true'? I do NOT find the word "race" offensive, except for the fact that you won't tell us what you (or anybody else) mean by it I have told you many times - it is the sharing of identifiable characteristics by a large group of people That covers f's example of brown-eyed people. I've asked you, and you haven't answered: are they a race? But the Britannica article shows that there is no SCIENTIFIC meaning for the term when applied to humans. No it does not The article gives the opinion of a body of scientists There is a body of scientists that disagree with that opinion Come on, PA - time for some examples!
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 3, 2014 20:19:07 GMT 1
So that's all that you are simply saying? You are not insisting that there is a race called the Chinese then?
So how do you identify them? Presumably you are grouping them in terms of physical characteristics, for example that the pygmies are small in stature and the Zulus large. You assign the term "race" to these different groups, which you are free to do, but it is a novel way to use the word. And of course it is not a recognised scientific term, your chosen method of grouping people (by the characteristic of height) is essentially arbitrary and not scientific. However genetic science would (I think) be able to identify these groupings.
Common usage, yes. Not scientific usage though.
Define "large". It is scientific to identify a common gene pool, but "race" is not a scientific term for identifying the genetic groups.
See reply above.
So you will not have any problem providing links which show individuals from this body that disagree with Britannica - won't you?
Oh it's nonsense is it. So you can easily show some science that defines what race in humans means can you?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 3, 2014 23:01:13 GMT 1
So that's all that you are simply saying? You are not insisting that there is a race called the Chinese then? I would simply apply the label 'Chinese' to that large group of people with common characteristics So how do you identify them? By classifying those group of characteristics that belong to large groups of people Presumably you are grouping them in terms of physical characteristics, for example that the pygmies are small in stature and the Zulus large. Yes. amongst many other characteristics that are comon to the groupings - including genetics You assign the term "race" to these different groups, which you are free to do, but it is a novel way to use the word. Novel! It is commonplace old chap! And of course it is not a recognised scientific term, Oh yes it is. Science has a long tradition of taxonomy by common characteristics - see Carl Linnaeus - see the periodic table. your chosen method of grouping people (by the characteristic of height) is essentially arbitrary Yes it would be arbitrary , but that is what you ascribe to me, not what I aver However genetic science would (I think) be able to identify these groupings. Yes, as I have said Common usage, yes. Not scientific usage though. It can be scientific - see above Big It is scientific to identify a common gene pool, but "race" is not a scientific term for identifying the genetic groups. 'Race' is simply the label applied to the results of the scientific process So you will not have any problem providing links which show individuals from this body that disagree with Britannica - won't you? Read you Brittannia article in full But we agree that genetic pooling will do so and that 'race' is simply a label applied to th separation of genetic pools among humans Oh it's nonsense is it. So you can easily show some science that defines what race in humans means can you? It is nonsense because you have agreed that genetic pooling can identify groups of people - if the genetic pooling applies to a large (big) group of people then a label can be attached That label is called 'race' I do not see quite why you are making such a fuss [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 4, 2014 0:02:49 GMT 1
So you will not have any problem providing links which show individuals from this body that disagree with Britannica - won't you? Read you Brittannia article in full. I did. ...For much of the 20th century, scientists in the Western world attempted to identify, describe, and classify human races and to document their differences and the relationships between them. Some scientists used the term race for subspecies, subdivisions of the human species which were presumed sufficiently different biologically that they might later evolve into separate species.
At no point, from the first rudimentary attempts at classifying human populations in the 17th and 18th centuries to the present day, have scientists agreed on the number of races of humankind, the features to be used in the identification of races, or the meaning of race itself. Experts have suggested a range of different races varying from 3 to more than 60, based on what they have considered distinctive differences in physical characteristics alone (these include hair type, head shape, skin colour, height, and so on). The lack of concurrence on the meaning and identification of races continued into the 21st century, and contemporary scientists are no closer to agreement than their forebears. Thus, race has never in the history of its use had a precise meaning.
Although most people continue to think of races as physically distinct populations, scientific advances in the 20th century demonstrated that human physical variations do not fit a “racial” model. Instead, human physical variations tend to overlap. 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.
Many scholars in other disciplines now accept this relatively new scientific understanding of biological diversity in the human species. Moreover, they have long understood that the concept of race as relating solely to phenotypic traits encompasses neither the social reality of race nor the phenomenon of “racism.” Prompted by advances in other fields, particularly anthropology and history, scholars began to examine race as a social and cultural, rather than biological, phenomenon and have determined that race is a social invention of relatively recent origin. It derives its most salient characteristics from the social consequences of its classificatory use. The idea of “race” began to evolve in the late 17th century, after the beginning of European exploration and colonization, as a folk ideology about human differences associated with the different populations—Europeans, Amerindians, and Africans—brought together in the New World. In the 19th century, after the abolition of slavery, the ideology fully emerged as a new mechanism of social division and stratification...
“Race” and intelligence
Anthropometric measurements did not provide any direct data to prove group superiority or inferiority. As various fields of study emerged in the late 19th century, some scholars began to focus on mental traits as a means to examine and describe human differences. Psychology as a growing field began developing its own programmatic interests in discovering race differences.
Images quizzes Lists
In the 1890s the psychologist Alfred Binet began testing the mental abilities of French schoolchildren to ascertain how children learned and to help those who had trouble learning. Binet did not call his test an intelligence test, and its purpose was not to divide French schoolchildren into hierarchical groups. But with these tests a new mechanism was born that would provide powerful support to those who held beliefs in racial differences in intelligence.
Psychologists in the United States very quickly adopted Binet’s tests and modified them for American use. More than that, they reinterpreted the results to be clear evidence of innate intelligence. Lewis Terman and his colleagues at Stanford University developed the Stanford-Binet IQ (intelligence quotient) test, which set the standard for similar tests produced by other American psychologists.
IQ tests began to be administered in large numbers during the second decade of the 20th century. The influences of hereditarian beliefs and the power of the racial worldview had conditioned Americans to believe that intelligence was inherited and permanent and that no external influences could affect it. Indeed, heredity was thought to determine a person’s or a people’s place in life and success or failure. Americans came to employ IQ tests more than any other nation. A major reason for this was that the tests tended to confirm the expectations of white Americans; on average, blacks did less well than whites on IQ tests. But the tests also revealed that the disadvantaged people of all races do worse on IQ tests than do the privileged. Such findings were compatible with the beliefs of large numbers of Americans who had come to accept unqualified biological determinism.
Opponents of IQ tests and their interpretations argued that intelligence had not been clearly defined, that experts did not agree on its definition, and that there were many different types of intelligence that cannot be measured. They also called attention to the many discrepancies and contradictions of the tests. One of the first examples of empirical evidence against the “innate intelligence” arguments was the revelation by psychologist Otto Klineberg in the 1930s that blacks in four northern states did better on average than whites in the four southern states where expenditures on education were lowest. Klineberg’s analysis pointed to a direct correlation between income and social class and performance on IQ tests. Further evidence indicated that students with the best primary education and greater cultural experiences always did better on such tests. Experts thus argued that such tests are culture-bound; that is, they reflect and measure the cultural experiences and knowledge of those who take the tests and their levels of education and training. Few would deny that African Americans and Native Americans have long had a much more restricted experience of American culture and a far inferior education.
(My emphasis.) There's lots more - eighteen pages in all, I think - but I have been unable to find any names of respected modern scientists who still cling to this notion. If you can find any, in the article or anwhere else, please let us know.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 5:22:50 GMT 1
I definitely like the science bit as well as the radio 4 bit. That is why I asked for a scientific definition of the meaning of race, in the discussion you are alluding to, and you could not provide one. I did provide one. You just didn't agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 5:27:59 GMT 1
...I asked for a scientific definition of the meaning of race, in the discussion you are alluding to, and you could not provide one. That is the problem. That's your problem. Exactly Nay's point: this is sheer dogma. If it is true, of course there could be, and would be, compelling scientific evidence. It's a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis. That's irrelevant. Many tests have been done of this hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 5:36:12 GMT 1
1. How do know that he never applied scientific tests? Because it is inconceivable that he had evidence that would have saved his reputation, and he kept silent about it. Possibly not. But it loses its interest if there's no evidence to support it. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence to support it. It's been a famous dispute for decades: how is the evidence to be accounted for, how to make adjustments to counteract competing explanations for it, should such studies be conducted in the first place, &c. You seem to have missed the point of the OP. It's about whether political correctness should be powerful enough in itself to overcome scientific hypotheses and negate scientific propositions. I see no indication that Nay agrees or disagrees with this particular hypothesis. Not unless you and Fascinating ever get around to answering the complete refutations of your whole argument I gave you the last time.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 5:42:39 GMT 1
If this were true, it would be a very important truth to have established, would it not? It would mean that some remedial action might be demanded to help the situation.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 5:46:51 GMT 1
As someone always says in the course of these discussions: There is always going to be a range of intelligence within any ethnic group so at the end of the day the goal should be to identify bright people and try to make the most of their talents. And that is really the only thing that matters. Ah, if only that were true! Just so long as it doesn't involve selection or streaming, eh?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 5:49:32 GMT 1
Progenitor A said "Do you maintain there is no genetic difference between a Chinaman and a Zulu - it is entirely accidental that they happen to have the differences that they do" There are genetic differences between Chinamen and Zulus. There are also genetic differences between Zulus and Hutus, and between Irishmen and Slavs, between different families in this country, between males and females, and between individuals. What's your point? His point is that is the scientific basis of racial differences.
|
|