|
Post by jean on Jan 15, 2015 19:59:00 GMT 1
Robert E. Kuttner, “Introduction,” in Kuttner, ed., Race and Modern Science: A Collection of Essays by Biologists, Anthropologists, Sociologists and Psychologists (New York: Social Science Press, 1967) Robert E. KuttnerRobert E. Kuttner was an American biologist. Born: March 10, 1927 Died: February 19, 1987 You don't tell us much about him, PA, and I'd never heard of him, so I looked him up. I found this.I can't cut and paste from it because it's a Googlebooks reference, but please read it. Here's just a sample: Kuttner...was an unabashed Nordicist. 'In recent times Gobineau, Chamberlain, Nietzsche, Wagner, Bismarck and Hitler have added to the Nordic's insight into his own destiny.' Kuttner called for a similar reawakening in his own time. 'The Nordic', he wrote, 'is our best hope. If he cannot be roused to fight for Europe and the White Race, then no other group can either, and disaster is inevitable...'There's more, and worse. (I'll be generous, and assume you didn't know all this when you cited him.)
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 15, 2015 20:31:38 GMT 1
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2460058?sid=21105634541203&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3738032www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6947/full/424374a.htmleric.ed.gov/?id=ED036317Biogenetics of Race and Class. Gottesman, I. I. This paper is the first chapter of a book and is divided into six sections. The first section discusses race taxonomy, the Negro American's origins from Africa, and the origin of race differences. The second section investigates the genetic aspects of race differences in intellectual performance, and includes a lengthy introductory discussion on the dialectics of heredity and environment. The third section deals with the genetic aspects of social class differences, while section four covers both race and class differences. The fifth section deals with the relationship between intelligence and family size in an introductory fashion, and the final section consists of a one-paragraph summary of the material covered in the chapter. A list of references and a glossary of terms are appended. (JF) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449495/The Role of Race and Genetics in Health Disparities ResearchMichael J. Fine, MD, MSc, Said A. Ibrahim, MD, MPH, and Stephen B. Thomas, PhD Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ► This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Over the past decade, 2 powerful scientific movements in the United States, population genetics and health disparities research, have re-ignited a contentious debate on the complex relationships between genes, race, and disease.1–3 The debate is fueled by the Human Genome Project, the increased technological capacity to map the entire human genome (the library of DNA building blocks), and the concerted national efforts to reduce racial disparities in health and health care. Many scientists believe that an understanding of the unique patterns of genes across patient populations defined by race will help identify populations at risk of developing particular diseases and ultimately enable the medical profession to tailor preventive medicine and therapies to those most likely to respond.4 A central premise of this field of investigation is that race is an inherent biological characteristic that accurately reflects human ancestry and the flow of common threads of genetic material in biologically distinct populations over time and geography. Health disparities research focuses on understanding the complex associations between race, health, and health care. Stimulated by the Healthy People 2010 initiative5 and an Institute of Medicine report documenting inequities in medical treatment among racial minorities,6 many health services, social sciences, and public health investigators have come to view race as a social and cultural construct, not a biological construct to be used in studies of race and human illness. www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3349951?sid=21105634541203&uid=2&uid=3738032&uid=4onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/can.2007.22.1.94/abstractthis article is an examination of academic, corporate, and state-funded alliance of molecular, biological, computer, and clinical scientists who are conducting research into the genetic epidemiology of type 2 diabetes. Because type 2 diabetes affects human groups differently, researchers use ethnic and racial taxonomies to parse populations and social history to rationalize their categorical choices. In a process termed “bioethnic conscription,” the social identities and life conditions of DNA donors are grafted into the biological explanations of human difference and disease causality in both objectionable and constructive ways. Bioethnic conscription is presented as an ethnographically sound alternative to the either–or proposition of the (R)ace–no race debate within biomedicine and anthropology. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448585/www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120505www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-311X2004000300003&script=sci_arttext
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 15, 2015 21:08:26 GMT 1
Interesting article here www.jenjdanna.com/blog/2012/7/10/forensics-101-race-determination-based-on-the-skull.html showing how the race of a person who has died can be determined (or estimated) by looking closely examining the features of the skull. They assume that there are 6 major races, though in the article they describe the features of only 3. Near the end it says "Rarely do all of these indicators point firmly to a single race. Instead, it is the story told by the majority of physical characteristics that suggests the victim’s ethnic background. "
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 15, 2015 21:09:37 GMT 1
Purpose of these postings and citations:
To Show that these statements are false
1. "Science today does not accept that human beings are divided into races." 2. "No geneticist recognises those old crude divisions of homo sapiens into Negro, Caucasian and whatever else it was, marchesa"
Quite apart from the absurdity of such sweeping generalisations emanating from ignorant non-scientists , of course all that is needed to show that these statements are false is one instance of a scientist that accepts the racial divisons (or one instance of science using racial divisons)and one instance of a geneticist that recognises the divisions
It has been demonstrated that there are many such instances of scientists holding such positions and science using racial divisons (one current quoted scientist estimates that about 50% of scientists hold the validity of race as a scientific concept)
QED
Finally: ... fair also to say that the champions of 'no difference' in race or sex, or intelligence ... are the guardians of a greater 'untruth' that allows people to live together in mutual harmony, implying that these critics really deserve to be praised as our protectors even when they are factually wrong? ... it is roughly how the self-appointed guardians choose to present themselves - leaving aside, usually, the step of frankly admitting that they are promoting factual untruths when they know that they are. William Donald "Bill" Hamilton, FRS (1 August 1936 – 7 March 2000) was an English evolutionary biologist, widely recognised as one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century.[1][2]
Hamilton became famous through his theoretical work expounding a rigorous genetic basis for the existence of kin selection and altruism, an insight that was a key part of the development of a gene-centric view of evolution. He is considered one of the forerunners of sociobiology, as popularized by E. O. Wilson. Hamilton also published important work on sex ratios and the evolution of sex. From 1984 to his death in 2000, he was a Royal Society Research Professor at Oxford University.
Statistics: References given 72 Ref types: Pure & Medical Science since before 1987 28 references Pure & Medical Science since 1987 29 references Anthropological Science 1968 - present 6 references Psychology 1972-present 3 references Sociology 1968-present 4 references
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 15, 2015 23:22:41 GMT 1
You've certainly given examples of lots of 'scientists', PA. But:
1. Much of their work is very out-of-date and predates modern genetics;
2. Many of the 'scientists' are anthropologists and psychologists, not proper scientists at all (ask Nick);
3. Many of your chosen examples do not say what you think they say, as has been pointed out;
4. Worst of all, you have approvingly posted links to some of the most egregious 'scientific racists' it's ever been my displeasure to read (I'll post some more extracts of work you've cited in support of your view, if I feel strong enough).
So I don't think you can claim to have demonstrated anything much.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 16, 2015 8:07:50 GMT 1
Credit where it is due Jean. After months of futile debate, laced with his insults, he has finally done the work of looking for evidence to back up his claims. The only trouble is that, while then he was debating without evidence, he is now providing evidence without debate. But at least he has dropped the schoolboy insults and I think he has taken things forward somewhat. I can see that the statement that science does not accept that human beings are divided into races is.....questionable. I still ask what these actual races are which science is supposed to describe.
|
|