Transracial?

[skepticalbip]

Absurd claims; those migrations all left clear and well known markers in the mitochondrial pattern of all descendents who have ancestry tying them to it. Those markers are, however, present regardless of apparent "race" and do not correspond predictably to other factors. Like cranial features, which correspond to a lot of things, some genetic and some environmental. I guarantee you that crania, though they can help rule out or make probable determinations of ethnicity if there are already suspects, can seldom assign a "race" with suitable accuracy. You can guess, because the human genome differs geographically (no one denies this) but not within giant, consistent racial pools like those you are imagining. For instance, a rural South African and an Ethiopean, both "black" to an American, likely differ from one another genetically to a much greater degree than the Ethiopean does from you. Genetic variability makes a lot of clusters of unique genes, but those clusters are usually vary small and local, and have no special compulsion to match social and political categories. A lab would likely be to confirm that someone was African by heritage, for instance, if they had gene sets commonly found on that continent. But that doesn't make them genetically identical, or even similar, to other Africans, let alone other people commonly described as "Blacks". They will be asking "where in the world are these genes most commonly found"? Not "in what race are these genes always found?" And bones are even more of a toss-up, considering the plurality of factors that can affect their growth and morphology, only some of which factors are heritable.

The fact that Native Americans migrated here from Asia was known long before it was further verified by DNA. How did they do that if not by distinguishing characteristics?

Surely you are not claiming that if there are no such identifiable distinctions. Assume that there are four archeological digs around the world and they each come up with 5000 year old skulls. Each packs up 250 skulls and ships them back to their university for study. Somehow, when they got back to the university all 1000 skulls get mixed up in the same large crate. Now all they know is that some were from the dig in Mongolia, some from the dig in Congo, some from the dig in Scotland, and some from the dig is Australia. What do you think the chances are that some anthropologist at the university can correctly sort and identify which dig each and every skull originated? If you think that they can easily sort them then how can you possibly claim that there are no distinguishing differences? It would only be distinguishing characteristics that would make sorting possible.

There are certainly distinguishing differences and there are a hell of of lot more commonalities. But the fact that we all have much, much more in common than we have differences does not mean that there aren't differences.

 

[Politesse]

Absurd claims; those migrations all left clear and well known markers in the mitochondrial pattern of all descendents who have ancestry tying them to it. Those markers are, however, present regardless of apparent "race" and do not correspond predictably to other factors. Like cranial features, which correspond to a lot of things, some genetic and some environmental. I guarantee you that crania, though they can help rule out or make probable determinations of ethnicity if there are already suspects, can seldom assign a "race" with suitable accuracy. You can guess, because the human genome differs geographically (no one denies this) but not within giant, consistent racial pools like those you are imagining. For instance, a rural South African and an Ethiopean, both "black" to an American, likely differ from one another genetically to a much greater degree than the Ethiopean does from you. Genetic variability makes a lot of clusters of unique genes, but those clusters are usually vary small and local, and have no special compulsion to match social and political categories. A lab would likely be to confirm that someone was African by heritage, for instance, if they had gene sets commonly found on that continent. But that doesn't make them genetically identical, or even similar, to other Africans, let alone other people commonly described as "Blacks". They will be asking "where in the world are these genes most commonly found"? Not "in what race are these genes always found?" And bones are even more of a toss-up, considering the plurality of factors that can affect their growth and morphology, only some of which factors are heritable.

The fact that Native Americans migrated here from Asia was known long before it was further verified by DNA. How did they do that if not by distinguishing characteristics?

Surely you are not claiming that if there are no such identifiable distinctions. Assume that there are four archeological digs around the world and they each come up with 5000 year old skulls. Each packs up 250 skulls and ships them back to their university for study. Somehow, when they got back to the university all 1000 skulls get mixed up in the same large crate. Now all they know is that some were from the dig in Mongolia, some from the dig in Congo, some from the dig in Scotland, and some from the dig is Australia. What do you think the chances are that some anthropologist at the university can correctly sort and identify which dig each and every skull originated? If you think that they can easily sort them then how can you possibly claim that there are no distinguishing differences? It would only be distinguishing characteristics that would make sorting possible.

There are certainly distinguishing differences and there are a hell of of lot more commonalities. But the fact that we all have much, much more in common than we have differences does not mean that there aren't differences.

No one has ever claimed that there are no physiological variations among humans. What we do so say is that there is no such thing as "race", if by this you mean features that make one very broad group of humans more similar to each other than they are different from others.

It is interesting that you are pounding this business about the Americas; the Siberian migration was originally proposed on the basis of geology, not biology. While the hypothesis was later confirmed, by both physiological and linguistic data, it was originally a supposition based on an ice-free corridor that scientists of the day believed was the only geographic bridge they could have traversed at the time when (at the time) the Americas were thought to have been first settled. I note that cranial data were often used to refute this hypothesis, as quite a few scientists thought that the earliest of remains here "looked European" in features. This sort of confusion has persisted to a late date. Kennewick Man, for instance, a 9,000 year old individual unearthed in Washington State, was frequently described as having European cranial features until genetics put this persistent rumour to rest nearly thirteen years after his initial documentation.

So no, such determinations are not always possible from cranial data alone.

Though in your specific example, narrowed down to four potential locations, I think most forensic anthropologists would have a pretty solid guess. The problem would be if there were no potential candidate sites; it is almost certain in that case that there would be many unplaceable crania. Indeed, we have quite a few casts in the department, inherited from previous generations of the faculty, that my colleague the osteo expert knows very little about. They have to be categorized separately from the rest on a tray labeled "mystery skulls"...

 

[Trausti]

Absurd claims; those migrations all left clear and well known markers in the mitochondrial pattern of all descendents who have ancestry tying them to it. Those markers are, however, present regardless of apparent "race" and do not correspond predictably to other factors. Like cranial features, which correspond to a lot of things, some genetic and some environmental. I guarantee you that crania, though they can help rule out or make probable determinations of ethnicity if there are already suspects, can seldom assign a "race" with suitable accuracy. You can guess, because the human genome differs geographically (no one denies this) but not within giant, consistent racial pools like those you are imagining. For instance, a rural South African and an Ethiopean, both "black" to an American, likely differ from one another genetically to a much greater degree than the Ethiopean does from you. Genetic variability makes a lot of clusters of unique genes, but those clusters are usually vary small and local, and have no special compulsion to match social and political categories. A lab would likely be to confirm that someone was African by heritage, for instance, if they had gene sets commonly found on that continent. But that doesn't make them genetically identical, or even similar, to other Africans, let alone other people commonly described as "Blacks". They will be asking "where in the world are these genes most commonly found"? Not "in what race are these genes always found?" And bones are even more of a toss-up, considering the plurality of factors that can affect their growth and morphology, only some of which factors are heritable.

The fact that Native Americans migrated here from Asia was known long before it was further verified by DNA. How did they do that if not by distinguishing characteristics?

Surely you are not claiming that if there are no such identifiable distinctions. Assume that there are four archeological digs around the world and they each come up with 5000 year old skulls. Each packs up 250 skulls and ships them back to their university for study. Somehow, when they got back to the university all 1000 skulls get mixed up in the same large crate. Now all they know is that some were from the dig in Mongolia, some from the dig in Congo, some from the dig in Scotland, and some from the dig is Australia. What do you think the chances are that some anthropologist at the university can correctly sort and identify which dig each and every skull originated? If you think that they can easily sort them then how can you possibly claim that there are no distinguishing differences? It would only be distinguishing characteristics that would make sorting possible.

There are certainly distinguishing differences and there are a hell of of lot more commonalities. But the fact that we all have much, much more in common than we have differences does not mean that there aren't differences.

 

[skepticalbip]

Absurd claims; those migrations all left clear and well known markers in the mitochondrial pattern of all descendents who have ancestry tying them to it. Those markers are, however, present regardless of apparent "race" and do not correspond predictably to other factors. Like cranial features, which correspond to a lot of things, some genetic and some environmental. I guarantee you that crania, though they can help rule out or make probable determinations of ethnicity if there are already suspects, can seldom assign a "race" with suitable accuracy. You can guess, because the human genome differs geographically (no one denies this) but not within giant, consistent racial pools like those you are imagining. For instance, a rural South African and an Ethiopean, both "black" to an American, likely differ from one another genetically to a much greater degree than the Ethiopean does from you. Genetic variability makes a lot of clusters of unique genes, but those clusters are usually vary small and local, and have no special compulsion to match social and political categories. A lab would likely be to confirm that someone was African by heritage, for instance, if they had gene sets commonly found on that continent. But that doesn't make them genetically identical, or even similar, to other Africans, let alone other people commonly described as "Blacks". They will be asking "where in the world are these genes most commonly found"? Not "in what race are these genes always found?" And bones are even more of a toss-up, considering the plurality of factors that can affect their growth and morphology, only some of which factors are heritable.

The fact that Native Americans migrated here from Asia was known long before it was further verified by DNA. How did they do that if not by distinguishing characteristics?

Surely you are not claiming that if there are no such identifiable distinctions. Assume that there are four archeological digs around the world and they each come up with 5000 year old skulls. Each packs up 250 skulls and ships them back to their university for study. Somehow, when they got back to the university all 1000 skulls get mixed up in the same large crate. Now all they know is that some were from the dig in Mongolia, some from the dig in Congo, some from the dig in Scotland, and some from the dig is Australia. What do you think the chances are that some anthropologist at the university can correctly sort and identify which dig each and every skull originated? If you think that they can easily sort them then how can you possibly claim that there are no distinguishing differences? It would only be distinguishing characteristics that would make sorting possible.

There are certainly distinguishing differences and there are a hell of of lot more commonalities. But the fact that we all have much, much more in common than we have differences does not mean that there aren't differences.

No one has ever claimed that there are no physiological variations among humans. What we do so say is that there is no such thing as "race", if by this you mean features that make one very broad group of humans more similar to each other than they are different from others.

It is interesting that you are pounding this business about the Americas; the Siberian migration was originally proposed on the basis of geology, not biology. While the hypothesis was later confirmed, by both physiological and linguistic data, it was originally a supposition based on an ice-free corridor that scientists of the day believed was the only geographic bridge they could have traversed at the time when (at the time) the Americas were thought to have been first settled. I note that cranial data were often used to refute this hypothesis, as quite a few scientists thought that the earliest of remains here "looked European" in features. This sort of confusion has persisted to a late date. Kennewick Man, for instance, a 9,000 year old individual unearthed in Washington State, was frequently described as having European cranial features until genetics put this persistent rumour to rest nearly thirteen years after his initial documentation.

So no, such determinations are not always possible from cranial data alone.

Though in your specific example, narrowed down to four potential locations, I think most forensic anthropologists would have a pretty solid guess. The problem would be if there were no potential candidate sites; it is almost certain in that case that there would be many unplaceable crania. Indeed, we have quite a few casts in the department, inherited from previous generations of the faculty, that my colleague the osteo expert knows very little about. They have to be categorized separately from the rest on a tray labeled "mystery skulls"...

I'll accept that you don't think you can tell the difference between the skull of an Australian aboriginal and the skull of a European. But I'll have to confess that there are a hell of a lot of anthropologists who are damned sure they can if the papers I have seen mean anything.

 

[Trausti]

No one has ever claimed that there are no physiological variations among humans. What we do so say is that there is no such thing as "race", if by this you mean features that make one very broad group of humans more similar to each other than they are different from others.

It is interesting that you are pounding this business about the Americas; the Siberian migration was originally proposed on the basis of geology, not biology. While the hypothesis was later confirmed, by both physiological and linguistic data, it was originally a supposition based on an ice-free corridor that scientists of the day believed was the only geographic bridge they could have traversed at the time when (at the time) the Americas were thought to have been first settled. I note that cranial data were often used to refute this hypothesis, as quite a few scientists thought that the earliest of remains here "looked European" in features. This sort of confusion has persisted to a late date. Kennewick Man, for instance, a 9,000 year old individual unearthed in Washington State, was frequently described as having European cranial features until genetics put this persistent rumour to rest nearly thirteen years after his initial documentation.

So no, such determinations are not always possible from cranial data alone.

Though in your specific example, narrowed down to four potential locations, I think most forensic anthropologists would have a pretty solid guess. The problem would be if there were no potential candidate sites; it is almost certain in that case that there would be many unplaceable crania. Indeed, we have quite a few casts in the department, inherited from previous generations of the faculty, that my colleague the osteo expert knows very little about. They have to be categorized separately from the rest on a tray labeled "mystery skulls"...

I'll accept that you don't think you can tell the difference between the skull of an Australian aboriginal and the skull of a European. But I'll have to confess that there are a hell of a lot of anthropologists who are damned sure they can if the papers I have seen mean anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

I had heard many years ago a great aunt had done our family tree and found we're related to British royalty and that there's even a family castle there. I haven't claimed my crown yet but it's still a fun story to tell.

My mother-in-law did that too when she got old, with the same result. Of course, it sounds better to just say my wife has royal blood than to actually specify which King of England was her ancestor...

Show

Rotten King John

 

[Politesse]

No one has ever claimed that there are no physiological variations among humans. What we do so say is that there is no such thing as "race", if by this you mean features that make one very broad group of humans more similar to each other than they are different from others.

It is interesting that you are pounding this business about the Americas; the Siberian migration was originally proposed on the basis of geology, not biology. While the hypothesis was later confirmed, by both physiological and linguistic data, it was originally a supposition based on an ice-free corridor that scientists of the day believed was the only geographic bridge they could have traversed at the time when (at the time) the Americas were thought to have been first settled. I note that cranial data were often used to refute this hypothesis, as quite a few scientists thought that the earliest of remains here "looked European" in features. This sort of confusion has persisted to a late date. Kennewick Man, for instance, a 9,000 year old individual unearthed in Washington State, was frequently described as having European cranial features until genetics put this persistent rumour to rest nearly thirteen years after his initial documentation.

So no, such determinations are not always possible from cranial data alone.

Though in your specific example, narrowed down to four potential locations, I think most forensic anthropologists would have a pretty solid guess. The problem would be if there were no potential candidate sites; it is almost certain in that case that there would be many unplaceable crania. Indeed, we have quite a few casts in the department, inherited from previous generations of the faculty, that my colleague the osteo expert knows very little about. They have to be categorized separately from the rest on a tray labeled "mystery skulls"...

I'll accept that you don't think you can tell the difference between the skull of an Australian aboriginal and the skull of a European. But I'll have to confess that there are a hell of a lot of anthropologists who are damned sure they can if the papers I have seen mean anything.

No one said that... I'm not going to have a conversation in bad faith.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ah, imagined counterarguments. The kind that's easiest to refute, and best suited for knocking down in Political Discussions.


Argument from authority? Seriously? As you wish...

'There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology.'

- Ernst Mayr​

I apologize for the apparent impression that I was making an argument from authority. I was not intending to suggest that you ought to believe me simply because of my credentials. There have, after all, been a fair number of racist anthropologists over the years, to say nothing of racist ornithologists. However, I was pointing out that dealing with this question was a common feature of my career, and that as such I was already familiar with the relevant data set; there is no need to advice me to "research" the issue by reading forum posts from several years ago.

When you say there is no need to advise you to "research" the issue, whom are you quoting?

Whether you choose to familiarize yourself with arguments you haven't encountered before is of course entirely up to you; and if, like most race-denialists, your reason for your opinion is an inclination to conform your views to the expectations of a subculture you belong to that for political reasons has unwisely decided to use a falsifiable scientific claim as a loyalty oath -- a subculture that would disown you if you were to change your mind -- keeping yourself ignorant of such arguments is very probably in your best interests. So please yourself. That is not what I'm calling you out on.

What I'm calling you out on is your choice not to inform yourself of what the arguments Angra Mainyu referred you to actually are before you chose to insinuate that ApostateAbe and I were peddling "popular perversions of misunderstood haplogroup data". If you wish to decide what the opposing arguments are by imagining instead of by reading, that is your right; but when you make that choice the honorable thing to do is to keep those imaginings to yourself.

Nor a contextless quote from an non-specialist. I am familiar with Mayr's Daedalus editorial, and the philosophical context of his views for that matter.

If you're calling me a non-specialist, that's true, but what of it? My not providing you with context can't be a problem since, as you just told us, you already know the context. In context, he was saying you're scientifically wrong and he was expressing the view that those with your opinion usually adopted it for non-scientific reasons; and it doesn't take a specialist to figure out that's what he meant.

Contrariwise, if you're calling Ernst Mayr a non-specialist, oh, for the love of god! Mayr's specialty was life. You are playing the part of a NASA engineer who so wants to believe his test bench really shows an alleged reactionless drive works that he calls Isaac Newton a "non-specialist" and kids himself that "For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction" makes an exception for space propulsion.

But as he never advanced a serious, falsifiable scientific argument for the existence of his "geographic races", ... I am not clear on why his views would be relevant to a discussion of the scientific validity of race?

His views are of necessity at least as relevant to a discussion of the scientific validity of race as your anthropologist-ness is. You don't want Mayr thrown in your face, don't throw "this is my field" in other people's faces, deal? Present arguments, and read and address counterarguments, or don't -- your option. You didn't advance a serious, falsifiable scientific argument against the existence of biological races; and your professional opinion as an anthropologist that there are no races carries no more weight than RavenSky's unsupported assertion.

But as he never advanced a serious, falsifiable scientific argument for ... his political support for positive eugenics,

What's your point? You've solved the infamous is-to-ought problem, and unlike Mayr, you have serious, falsifiable scientific arguments showing that politically supporting your recommended policies is scientifically correct?

Alternately, are you perhaps suggesting a scientists' lack of neutrality on moral questions renders him unfit to provide expert testimony on scientific matters within his own field?

Or, third possibility, are you simply inviting your readers to disapprove of Mayr for wanting to pay women to make more babies, on account of guilt-by-association between that policy and forced sterilizations, on account of the word "eugenics" being commonly used for both, in the hope that people will perceive Mayr as evil and discount his superior authoritativeness?

There have, after all, been a fair number of racist anthropologists over the years, to say nothing of racist ornithologists.

I guess that answers that question.

Not that it matters -- an ad hominem argument is a fallacious argument whether the accusation is true or not -- but what makes you think the ornithologist was racist? There are some ideologues who define it as racist to think biological races are real. Are you one of them?

 

[Politesse]

I'm not sure you understand what "specialist" means? Usually, it refers to the specific area you have predominately studied and know the most about, not how smart you are or what a good person you are. Being a non-specialist is not a diss, just a necessary limitation; everyone has to choose a concentration eventually. Mayr was an ornithologist, not an anthropologist. A damn fine ornithologist, and I mean no offense to the man's intelligence or accomplishments here. But being the finest sushi chef in the world doesn't necessarily make you an equally good baker. I would not take my word for it on a question of bird classification, for instance, despite being a reasonably well-accomplished anthropologist. Do you think you should, since likewise my "specialization is life" and that includes birds?

And as I pointed out, I think arguments from authority are irrelevant in any case, that isn't how we decide whether something is true or not. If you want a better name to wave around, I seem to know more racist anthropologists than you do; should I make a few suggestions of useful names and quotes, so you have better quality tu quoques ready the next time you are trying to divert the conversation from the scientific paucity of your position?

There are some ideologues who define it as racist to think biological races are real. Are you one of them?

Obviously. It was a philosophical standpoint long before it was an insult, and a well-respected one at every level of academics. It was once the only philosophical standpoint we had to explain human biological and cultural diversity. But If you want to throw back the clock of the biological sciences to the 20th century, don't be surprised if people are inclined to call a spade a spade. What do you want to call a belief in "biological races" that persists long after the concept has been disproven? You can name it something else if you like, but it will be the same belief system either way. I can see where, from a moral standpoint, you would want to distance yourself from someone who believes arbitrarily that some races are better, but what values you ascribe to races are irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, to the contemplation of the science at hand.

 

[Toni]

When you say there is no need to advise you to "research" the issue, whom are you quoting?

Whether you choose to familiarize yourself with arguments you haven't encountered before is of course entirely up to you; and if, like most race-denialists, your reason for your opinion is an inclination to conform your views to the expectations of a subculture you belong to that for political reasons has unwisely decided to use a falsifiable scientific claim as a loyalty oath -- a subculture that would disown you if you were to change your mind -- keeping yourself ignorant of such arguments is very probably in your best interests. So please yourself. That is not what I'm calling you out on.

What I'm calling you out on is your choice not to inform yourself of what the arguments Angra Mainyu referred you to actually are before you chose to insinuate that ApostateAbe and I were peddling "popular perversions of misunderstood haplogroup data". If you wish to decide what the opposing arguments are by imagining instead of by reading, that is your right; but when you make that choice the honorable thing to do is to keep those imaginings to yourself.

Nor a contextless quote from an non-specialist. I am familiar with Mayr's Daedalus editorial, and the philosophical context of his views for that matter.

If you're calling me a non-specialist, that's true, but what of it? My not providing you with context can't be a problem since, as you just told us, you already know the context. In context, he was saying you're scientifically wrong and he was expressing the view that those with your opinion usually adopted it for non-scientific reasons; and it doesn't take a specialist to figure out that's what he meant.

Contrariwise, if you're calling Ernst Mayr a non-specialist, oh, for the love of god! Mayr's specialty was life. You are playing the part of a NASA engineer who so wants to believe his test bench really shows an alleged reactionless drive works that he calls Isaac Newton a "non-specialist" and kids himself that "For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction" makes an exception for space propulsion.

But as he never advanced a serious, falsifiable scientific argument for the existence of his "geographic races", ... I am not clear on why his views would be relevant to a discussion of the scientific validity of race?

His views are of necessity at least as relevant to a discussion of the scientific validity of race as your anthropologist-ness is. You don't want Mayr thrown in your face, don't throw "this is my field" in other people's faces, deal? Present arguments, and read and address counterarguments, or don't -- your option. You didn't advance a serious, falsifiable scientific argument against the existence of biological races; and your professional opinion as an anthropologist that there are no races carries no more weight than RavenSky's unsupported assertion.

But as he never advanced a serious, falsifiable scientific argument for ... his political support for positive eugenics,

What's your point? You've solved the infamous is-to-ought problem, and unlike Mayr, you have serious, falsifiable scientific arguments showing that politically supporting your recommended policies is scientifically correct?

Alternately, are you perhaps suggesting a scientists' lack of neutrality on moral questions renders him unfit to provide expert testimony on scientific matters within his own field?

Or, third possibility, are you simply inviting your readers to disapprove of Mayr for wanting to pay women to make more babies, on account of guilt-by-association between that policy and forced sterilizations, on account of the word "eugenics" being commonly used for both, in the hope that people will perceive Mayr as evil and discount his superior authoritativeness?

There have, after all, been a fair number of racist anthropologists over the years, to say nothing of racist ornithologists.

I guess that answers that question.

Not that it matters -- an ad hominem argument is a fallacious argument whether the accusation is true or not -- but what makes you think the ornithologist was racist? There are some ideologues who define it as racist to think biological races are real. Are you one of them?

Dude: Politesse has actual science on their side. That trumps anonymous people typing away on the internets.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Dude: Politesse has actual science on their side. That trumps anonymous people typing away on the internets.

Of course, Bomb#20 has actual science on his side. A person being rational about it can just follow the links I provided and see that, at least if they have enough knowledge to follow the arguments. Else, they might not have the tools to say. But in any event, it would be epistemically irrational to reckon that Politesse is correct on the basis of the information available in this thread or the others.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Obviously. It was a philosophical standpoint long before it was an insult, and a well-respected one at every level of academics. It was once the only philosophical standpoint we had to explain human biological and cultural diversity. But If you want to throw back the clock of the biological sciences to the 20th century, don't be surprised if people are inclined to call a spade a spade. What do you want to call a belief in "biological races" that persists long after the concept has been disproven? You can name it something else if you like, but it will be the same belief system either way. I can see where, from a moral standpoint, you would want to distance yourself from someone who believes arbitrarily that some races are better, but what values you ascribe to races are irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, to the contemplation of the science at hand.

Words have meaning, and the meaning is acquired by usage. I'm not a racist in any usual meaning of the word (there probably is more than one), but your usage is not a usual one. Sure, as Bomb#20 points out, some ideologues define the word "racism" that way, and sometimes (in some cases, perhaps always) they use the words as they define it. However, that is not common usage, and calling people "racist" without clarifying your preferred definition is rather insulting.

Now, according to the definition you accept, I am a racist, since I can tell that biological races are real, and your false claim that "the concept has been disproven" does not make it into the definition of "racism", so people who have the true belief that there are biological races are racists by your usage, regardless of whether that true belief is warranted - as it is in the cases under consideration. Again, you should make that clear before you call people "racist".

As to your claim that "the concept has been disproven", I take that to mean that it has been shown that there are no biological races. That claim is false, and I already provided relevant links. But just in case, if what you mean is that the concept is incoherent, please let me know (that one is also false, but it is a different false claim).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Whatever argument you may have in support of your claim that there is no such thing as a biological race.


But you claimed that there is no such thing as a biological race. Was your claim unfalsifiable? If it was not, then I don't see why there could be no evidence for it. Yet, I have not seen it. I have seen many people claim that there is no such thing as a biological race, whereas other people replying that there is. I have read the arguments of both sides, the information they presented in support of their respective claims, etc., and on the basis of that, I reckon that there is such thing as a biological race. Given that you told me there is not, I was asking for any arguments in support of your claim. As for my implication (and now claim) that there are biological races, as I said, I wasn't going to participate in a debate on race here, as people who know a lot more about it than I do have already provided decisive arguments, so posting the links is good enough.

Of course, you may not want to read those arguments, and you will not be persuaded if you don't (if you did read them, I can't tell for sure, but previous experience indicate people who claim that there are no races are at least almost never persuaded that there are, so it would be very difficult). But then, I see no good reason to be persuaded by your telling me that there is no biological race, either. I do take your word on it as another piece of evidence, but it does not move the needle significantly - no offense, but the arguments I've seen seem pretty unassailable, so I would need a lot more than an argument from authority to counter them.


This is of course true, but I'm not sure how it would be relevant.

I'm not sure whether I understand how you use the terms here.
I don't know what you mean by those terms. Is species a functional category, or a natural property? Subspecies? Variety?
Regardless, there are human races, and those are biological distinctions. I provided the relevant links already, and as I said I will not give an argument myself given that better arguments have already been given, so I will leave it at that.

I'm pretty sure that you can just leave off at: "I don't know..."

But since what I said wasn't "I don't know...", but the things I wanted to say and which you quoted, it would have been instrumentally irrational on my part to just say "I don't know...".

 

[Toni]

It’s arrogant to assume that Politesse or anyone else needs to read whatever thread you direct them to read in order to understand a topic.

Politesse has expertise: knowledge, experience and learning in this particular field of study. You have... opinions and internet links.

 

[RavenSky]

Of course, Bomb#20 has actual science on his side...

He actually doesn't

 

[Politesse]

Obviously. It was a philosophical standpoint long before it was an insult, and a well-respected one at every level of academics. It was once the only philosophical standpoint we had to explain human biological and cultural diversity. But If you want to throw back the clock of the biological sciences to the 20th century, don't be surprised if people are inclined to call a spade a spade. What do you want to call a belief in "biological races" that persists long after the concept has been disproven? You can name it something else if you like, but it will be the same belief system either way. I can see where, from a moral standpoint, you would want to distance yourself from someone who believes arbitrarily that some races are better, but what values you ascribe to races are irrelevant, or should be irrelevant, to the contemplation of the science at hand.

Words have meaning, and the meaning is acquired by usage. I'm not a racist in any usual meaning of the word (there probably is more than one), but your usage is not a usual one. Sure, as Bomb#20 points out, some ideologues define the word "racism" that way, and sometimes (in some cases, perhaps always) they use the words as they define it. However, that is not common usage, and calling people "racist" without clarifying your preferred definition is rather insulting.

Now, according to the definition you accept, I am a racist, since I can tell that biological races are real, and your false claim that "the concept has been disproven" does not make it into the definition of "racism", so people who have the true belief that there are biological races are racists by your usage, regardless of whether that true belief is warranted - as it is in the cases under consideration. Again, you should make that clear before you call people "racist".

As to your claim that "the concept has been disproven", I take that to mean that it has been shown that there are no biological races. That claim is false, and I already provided relevant links. But just in case, if what you mean is that the concept is incoherent, please let me know (that one is also false, but it is a different false claim).

I don't call anyone racist, generally speaking. I was answering a direct question, not calling anyone out. But the reason I do not is social (it is considered rude to do so), not logical.

 

[skepticalbip]

No one has ever claimed that there are no physiological variations among humans. What we do so say is that there is no such thing as "race", if by this you mean features that make one very broad group of humans more similar to each other than they are different from others.

It is interesting that you are pounding this business about the Americas; the Siberian migration was originally proposed on the basis of geology, not biology. While the hypothesis was later confirmed, by both physiological and linguistic data, it was originally a supposition based on an ice-free corridor that scientists of the day believed was the only geographic bridge they could have traversed at the time when (at the time) the Americas were thought to have been first settled. I note that cranial data were often used to refute this hypothesis, as quite a few scientists thought that the earliest of remains here "looked European" in features. This sort of confusion has persisted to a late date. Kennewick Man, for instance, a 9,000 year old individual unearthed in Washington State, was frequently described as having European cranial features until genetics put this persistent rumour to rest nearly thirteen years after his initial documentation.

So no, such determinations are not always possible from cranial data alone.

Though in your specific example, narrowed down to four potential locations, I think most forensic anthropologists would have a pretty solid guess. The problem would be if there were no potential candidate sites; it is almost certain in that case that there would be many unplaceable crania. Indeed, we have quite a few casts in the department, inherited from previous generations of the faculty, that my colleague the osteo expert knows very little about. They have to be categorized separately from the rest on a tray labeled "mystery skulls"...

I'll accept that you don't think you can tell the difference between the skull of an Australian aboriginal and the skull of a European. But I'll have to confess that there are a hell of a lot of anthropologists who are damned sure they can if the papers I have seen mean anything.

No one said that... I'm not going to have a conversation in bad faith.

Bad faith?

You keep claiming that there are no distinctive characteristics between large groups and then completely ignore and refuse to respond when I offer a test that shows that there are. e.g. can an anthropologist correctly categorize the thousand skulls in the crate I set up and you ignored?

If your claim is that there are no distinctive characteristics then you couldn't tell the difference so those 1000 skulls could not be sorted.

 

[Toni]

No one said that... I'm not going to have a conversation in bad faith.

Bad faith?

You keep claiming that there are no distinctive characteristics between large groups and then completely ignore and refuse to respond when I offer a test that shows that there are. e.g. can an anthropologist correctly categorize the thousand skulls in the crate I set up and you ignored?

If your claim is that there are no distinctive characteristics then you couldn't tell the difference so those 1000 skulls could not be sorted.

Bad faith seems to be your middle name.

 

[skepticalbip]

No one said that... I'm not going to have a conversation in bad faith.

Bad faith?

You keep claiming that there are no distinctive characteristics between large groups and then completely ignore and refuse to respond when I offer a test that shows that there are. e.g. can an anthropologist correctly categorize the thousand skulls in the crate I set up and you ignored?

If your claim is that there are no distinctive characteristics then you couldn't tell the difference so those 1000 skulls could not be sorted.

Bad faith seems to be your middle name.

Cute... Now specify where the bad faith is.

 

[Politesse]

No one said that... I'm not going to have a conversation in bad faith.

Bad faith?

You keep claiming that there are no distinctive characteristics between large groups and then completely ignore and refuse to respond when I offer a test that shows that there are. e.g. can an anthropologist correctly categorize the thousand skulls in the crate I set up and you ignored?

If your claim is that there are no distinctive characteristics then you couldn't tell the difference so those 1000 skulls could not be sorted.

What's the point of re-iterating myself? If you did not read my original response to your query, writing it again will not change anything.