|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 4, 2014 20:57:50 GMT 1
Does a desert have a scientific definition? How many are there in the world? How large is it? When does a bit of dry scrubland become a desert, scientifically speaking? Where exactly do you draw the boundaries? Is a "river" a scientific concept? How many in the world are there? How large does it have to be? When does a stream become a river, and a river an estuary or a delta or a channel? Is the Solent a "river" and if not why not? Is a "cyclone" a scientific concept? How many, how large, what exactly are its boundaries? Is a "planet"? On what basis is Pluto now not a planet, but it was, scientifically speaking, twenty years ago? Is a "galaxy" a scientific concept? How large is it? How many stars, exactly? Where does it start, and where does it end? Does a "society" have a scientific definition? How many, how large, where are its boundaries? A "family"? "Kinship"? How about a "magnetic field" - where does it end, how strong does it have to be before it qualifies, how many "lines of force" must it have? Is an atom, or a molecule? How many are there? How large are they? How distinct must they be to qualify? A brilliant piece of dialecticism! Bravo! Encore!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 4, 2014 21:13:39 GMT 1
Steady on, old chap. I find blushing very unfamiliar, and I'm not sure I like it! What's got into you today, anyway? Very emollient - I do hope it's not Prozac. Enough limp people around here already.
Well, this board is playing up, so I'll bid you goodnight. Keep up the good fight.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 4, 2014 21:56:01 GMT 1
Does a desert have a scientific definition? How many are there in the world? How large is it? When does a bit of dry scrubland become a desert, scientifically speaking? Where exactly do you draw the boundaries? Is a "river" a scientific concept? How many in the world are there? How large does it have to be? When does a stream become a river, and a river an estuary or a delta or a channel? Is the Solent a "river" and if not why not? Is a "cyclone" a scientific concept? How many, how large, what exactly are its boundaries? Is a "planet"? On what basis is Pluto now not a planet, but it was, scientifically speaking, twenty years ago? Is a "galaxy" a scientific concept? How large is it? How many stars, exactly? Where does it start, and where does it end? Does a "society" have a scientific definition? How many, how large, where are its boundaries? A "family"? "Kinship"? How about a "magnetic field" - where does it end, how strong does it have to be before it qualifies, how many "lines of force" must it have? Is an atom, or a molecule? How many are there? How large are they? How distinct must they be to qualify? A brilliant piece of dialecticism! Bravo! Encore! You're easily impressed, PA. I don't know if 'river' (for example) is a 'scientific concept' - is it? - but I do know that if I designed a hypothesis that one river had a different set of attributes from another river, it would be quite important to establish exactly where that river ended, which of its tributaries counted as part of it, that sort of thing. I'm sure you agree.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 5, 2014 9:52:56 GMT 1
Does a desert have a scientific definition? How many are there in the world? How large is it? When does a bit of dry scrubland become a desert, scientifically speaking? Where exactly do you draw the boundaries? Is a "river" a scientific concept? How many in the world are there? How large does it have to be? When does a stream become a river, and a river an estuary or a delta or a channel? Is the Solent a "river" and if not why not? Is a "cyclone" a scientific concept? How many, how large, what exactly are its boundaries? Is a "planet"? On what basis is Pluto now not a planet, but it was, scientifically speaking, twenty years ago? Is a "galaxy" a scientific concept? How large is it? How many stars, exactly? Where does it start, and where does it end? Does a "society" have a scientific definition? How many, how large, where are its boundaries? A "family"? "Kinship"? How about a "magnetic field" - where does it end, how strong does it have to be before it qualifies, how many "lines of force" must it have? Is an atom, or a molecule? How many are there? How large are they? How distinct must they be to qualify? A brilliant piece of dialecticism! Bravo! Encore! PA, you are being sarcastic right? From dictionary.reference.com/science/desert (děz'ərt) Pronunciation Key A large, dry, barren region, usually having sandy or rocky soil and little or no vegetation. Water lost to evaporation and transpiration in a desert exceeds the amount of precipitation; most deserts average less than 25 cm (9.75 inches) of precipitation each year, concentrated in short local bursts. Deserts cover about one fifth of the Earth's surface, with the principal warm deserts located mainly along the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of capricorn, where warm, rising equatorial air masses that have already lost most of their moisture descend over the subtropical regions. Cool deserts are located at higher elevations in the temperate regions, often on the lee side of a barrier mountain range where the prevailing winds drop their moisture before crossing the range. river (rĭv'ər) Pronunciation Key A wide, natural stream of fresh water that flows into an ocean or other large body of water and is usually fed by smaller streams, called tributaries, that enter it along its course. A river and its tributaries form a drainage basin, or watershed, that collects the runoff throughout the region and channels it along with erosional sediments toward the river. The sediments are typically deposited most heavily along the river's lower course, forming floodplains along its banks and a delta at its mouth. cyclone (sī'klōn') Pronunciation Key A large-scale system of winds that spiral in toward a region of low atmospheric pressure. A cyclone's rotational direction is opposite to that of an anticyclone. In the Northern hemisphere, a cyclone rotates counterclockwise; in the Southern hemisphere, clockwise. Because low-pressure systems generally produce clouds and precipitation, cyclones are often simply referred to as storms. ◇ An extratropical cyclone is one that forms outside the tropics at middle or high latitudes. Extratropical cyclones usually have an organized front and migrate eastward with the prevailing westerly winds of those latitudes. ◇ A tropical cyclone forms over warm tropical waters and is generally smaller than an extratropical cyclone. Such a system is characterized by a warm, well-defined core and can range in intensity from a tropical depression to a hurricane. Compare anticyclone. A small-scale, violently rotating windstorm, such as a tornado or waterspout. Not in scientific use. planet [%PREMIUM_LINK%] (plān'ĭt) Pronunciation Key A large celestial body, smaller than a star but larger than an asteroid, that does not produce its own light but is illuminated by light from the star around which it revolves. galaxy [%PREMIUM_LINK%] (gāl'ək-sē) Pronunciation Key Any of numerous large-scale collections of stars, gas, and dust that make up the visible universe. Galaxies are held together by the gravitational attraction of the material contained within them, and most are organized around a galactic nucleus into elliptical or spiral shapes, with a small percentage of galaxies classed as irregular in shape. A galaxy may range in diameter from some hundreds of light-years for the smallest dwarfs to hundreds of thousands of light-years for the largest ellipticals, and may contain from a few million to several trillion stars. race (rās) Pronunciation Key An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. 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.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 5, 2014 12:05:04 GMT 1
Or at the very least, show me a scientific paper that even uses the word "race" that is SCIENTIFICALLY meaningful. ...Nay has just mentioned the papers by Hans Eysenck concerning the racial differences in IQ test results - should take you five seconds to find a reference to them. Eysenck? whose work on race and intelligence dates from the 1970s, long before the most recent research in genetics? Even at the time it was not universally accepted: www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/amc/articles-pdfs/scieraci.pdfNo, they're not. You've been given references to work that clearly demonstrates that they're not the same thing. And what was the conclusion reached? Is he Black or White? It's quite important to know the answer to this, because if he turns up in our sample when we set out to test Watson's hypothesis Black people's intelligence is not the same as white people's intelligence, it's quite important to get him in the right racial category, isn't it? Otherwise our results may be skewed.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 5, 2014 12:34:25 GMT 1
But we don't, and there's no reason we should is there? That's like saying things would be different if we "diagnosed" racial identity from the length of hair. No it isn't. Hair length of course, being something the individual can alter at will, has no genetic basis. Those of us to whom it is important to assign individuals to particular races '"diagnose" racial identity' from the visible characteristics you're always inviting me to diagnose it from. There's no inevitability about it. It's just that they were all that was available to those who came up with the idea of different races in the first place. Not sure where he says this, but presumably his 'we' includes you. And it does seem a little unfair that you expect us to dismiss his ideas purely on the basis of his politics, when you don't think your own should be taken into account when we decide whether to take your views seriously or not. (PA is crafty enough to claim political neutrality.)
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 5, 2014 15:05:56 GMT 1
A brilliant piece of dialecticism! Bravo! Encore! PA, you are being sarcastic right? Wrong From dictionary.reference.com/science/This does not answer many of the questions that Nick asked about deserts - just to remind you (as you asked the same questions about the definition of 'race' and heaped ridicule because I could not answer) How many? How big? What's difference between scrubland and desert? What are the boundaries between desert and not-desert? river (rĭv'ər) Pronunciation Key A wide, natural stream of fresh water that flows into an ocean or other large body of water and is usually fed by smaller streams, called tributaries, that enter it along its course. A river and its tributaries form a drainage basin, or watershed, that collects the runoff throughout the region and channels it along with erosional sediments toward the river. The sediments are typically deposited most heavily along the river's lower course, forming floodplains along its banks and a delta at its mouth. How many? How big? What's difference between river, rivulet, stream? You probably get the point of Nicks' post now, which is of course, that a concept can still be 'scientific' even if your questions cannot be easily answered. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. 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 Because the number of shared genes between members of a race is tiny does not affect the importance of those genes in classifying race as you well know. Just one gene being faulty can lead to the most gross distortions in human physiology. I find this comment very strange and because genetic variation among members of a traditionally recognized racial group is generally as great as between two such groups What!? This is a rambling non-sequitur What on earth has this to do with the (small number) of genes that actually do identify the members as belonging to a race? In the taxonomy of race we are not concerned with the differences in genes between members of a race , but the similarity! most scientists now consider race to be primarily a social rather than a scientific concept.
Most do perhaps, some do not. That is science for you. An arena of contention. That is the nature of hypotheses. Has always been so. Historically almost invariably the majority of scientists have been proved wrong and the minority of scientists right! That is how science progresses!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 5, 2014 16:07:25 GMT 1
You probably get the point of Nicks' post now, which is of course, that a concept can still be 'scientific' even if your questions cannot be easily answered. We know what it's supposed to be, but we can see very clearly that his analogies with other scientific concepts don't work. A desert is not the same kind of thing as a 'race'. A desert isn't part of any taxonomic hierarchy. It isn't a superordinate applied to a number of interrelated constituents - well I suppose it might be, if you consider that it's often composed of grains of sand. But that fact isn't important unless we want to look at the shared characteristics of one lot of grains of sand as compared with another lot. Then where the boundaries of each desert are becomes very important indeed. But we rarely want to do that, which is why we don't include in our definition of desert factors which are necessary for our definition of race if we want to test Watson's hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 5, 2014 17:24:37 GMT 1
York. A desert is not the same kind of thing as a 'race'. Well done! We'll make a scientist of you yet! Did you work that out yourself or can you quote your references? Mind you have you considered the Desert Races? A desert isn't part of any taxonomic hierarchy. Of course it is. There are many kinds of desert It isn't a superordinate applied to a number of interrelated constituents - well I suppose it might be, if you consider that it's often composed of grains of sand. Of course it is. A desert is the name given to an assemblage of various parts that often have something in common - rather like 'Race' in fact! But that fact isn't important unless we want to look at the shared characteristics of one lot of grains of sand as compared with another lot. Then where the boundaries of each desert are becomes very important indeed. But deserts are not solely composed of grains of sand are they? But we rarely want to do that Don't we then! Try telling that to scientists exploring for oil and minerals which is why we don't include in our definition of desert factors which are necessary for our definition of race if we want to test Watson's hypothesis. Do you mean that in the taxonomy of deserts the size of the desert is immaterial , or where it starts and stops is of no consequence, but these factors are important to race? What an odd assertion - one that can be easily shown to be false in that size and the boundaries of a desert can be of overwhelming importance in the taxonomy of deserts
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 5, 2014 17:37:17 GMT 1
PA, I can answer your questions, but before I do get diverted off to another tangent, bear with me while we consider the actual question we are supposed to be debating here.
In my first post in this discussion I said "I asked for a scientific definition of the meaning of race, in the discussion you are alluding to, and you could not provide one."
Now, in an attempt to take out consideration of the personalities in this discussion, let's suppose you had, say, borrowed a book from the library, and a piece of paper fell out of it, and on the paper is written: "there is no widely-accepted scientific definition of "race" as applied to humans". On reading that you say "Pfft, of course there are races of mankind, it is obvious". OK, that is your opinion, which may well be true, but does that make the statement on the paper wrong? The statement does not refer to Progenitor A's definition of race, but to science's definition of race. Therefore what matters is not your opinion, or my opinion, but the opinion of science.
So to determine if the statement is true or false, we need to look up the relevant references to science. Possibly you might first look up the definition of race as given by scientific literature.
But hold on, what mrsonde seems to be saying, and you seem to be agreeing with, is that there are no precise definitions of deserts or of galaxies or of planets. So, presumably, we cannot expect a precise scientific definition of "race" either.
Now, if we accept that view, is the statement "there is no widely-accepted scientific definition of "race" as applied to humans" true or false.
Well of course it is true. It is held that there is no definition in science of ANYTHING, therefore there is no scientific definition of race is there?
But I hold to the view that science has to have many definitions of lots of things, and that these definitions are almost all reasonably precise. So I have started to look around for widely-accepted scientific definitions of race, but I cannot find any, though I can easily find scientific definitions of many other things.
Therefore I maintain that the statement "there is no widely-accepted scientific definition of "race" as applied to humans" is true.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 5, 2014 18:01:00 GMT 1
The definition enables those questions to be answered. The definition goes on to say "An area with an annual rainfall of fewer than 25 centimeters (9.75 inches) generally qualifies as a desert. " Therefore all the land areas where the rainfall is lower than that figure, are desert (scrubland is not a scientifically-recognised term). The boundary of a desert is where the rainfall is at or above 25cm per annum. It is known that the deserts cover some 20% of the world's land, therefore the deserts cover some 11 million square miles. The exact details and dimensions are quite easy to find.
I don't know if anyone has counted them, but we know that there are many thousands of rivers, and I presume that just about all of them have been mapped, so if you want to count them, you can get out all the large scale maps of the Earth's surface and tot them up. Their sizes are also apparent from the maps, and there is much information on the internet showing which are the largest, and the largest per country, plus lengths of smaller rivers. "Rivulet" is not a scientific term. The definition of "river" clearly states that those streams that flow into a river tributaries. Those streams that flow directly into the sea or other large bodies are, technically, also rivers, by this scientific definition.
And so on with the other definitions mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 5, 2014 18:55:03 GMT 1
Do you mean that in the taxonomy of deserts the size of the desert is immaterial , or where it starts and stops is of no consequence, but these factors are important to race? What an odd assertion - one that can be easily shown to be false in that size and the boundaries of a desert can be of overwhelming importance in the taxonomy of deserts. Take a deep breath, PA. You and Nick have been insisting that you have given a definition of race which is adequate for the testing of the hypothesis Black people's intelligence is not the same as white people's intelligence, but which does not specify the boundaries of either the Black or the White race. I, and I think fascinating would agree, have said that any definition of race which doesn't specify this is useless for this purpose. Then Nick comes along, and we have this: Does a desert have a scientific definition? How many are there in the world? How large is it? When does a bit of dry scrubland become a desert, scientifically speaking? Where exactly do you draw the boundaries?... A brilliant piece of dialecticism! Bravo! Encore! But the whole point of that brilliant piece of dialectic, which so impressed you, was that scientific definitions do not always specify the sorts of things I claim need to be specified in any definition of race as applied to humans such as we would need to test the hypothesis in question. Nick would like us to conclude that we don't need those things in a definition of race either. And now here you are, insisting that, in respect of deserts, we really do need the sort of information you insisted we didn't need when we were attempting to define 'race'! (I will tactfully leave the taxonomy of deserts out of it.) So...I think it's time for that fully comprehensive definition of race, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 1, 2015 19:17:36 GMT 1
So...I think it's time for that fully comprehensive definition of race, don't you? It might be possible to define "breed standards" as with the Kennel Club, but unless you are going to have single-class competitions it probably has no value.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 2, 2015 19:11:16 GMT 1
So...I think it's time for that fully comprehensive definition of race, don't you? It might be possible to define "breed standards" as with the Kennel Club, but unless you are going to have single-class competitions it probably has no value. Your appalling language apart, that quite succinctly illustrates 'race'
|
|