Transracial?

[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.

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.

I read your response, your argument is based on outliers (which are rare) as showing there is no general similarities of a group that is distinctive from the characteristics of other groups that have their own similar characteristics.

I have every confidence that a competent anthropologist would have no difficulty sorting those thousand skulls to the correct dig allowing for the possibility that there may be an outlier in there somewhere. The reason that they could sort them is that there are distinctive characteristics common in groups that differ from common characteristics common in other groups.

 

[Toni]

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.

I read your response, your argument is based on outliers (which are rare) as showing there is no general similarities of a group that is distinctive from the characteristics of other groups that have their own similar characteristics.

I have every confidence that a competent anthropologist would have no difficulty sorting those thousand skulls to the correct dig allowing for the possibility that there may be an outlier in there somewhere. The reason that they could sort them is that there are distinctive characteristics common in groups that differ from common characteristics common in other groups.

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

I read your response, your argument is based on outliers (which are rare) as showing there is no general similarities of a group that is distinctive from the characteristics of other groups that have their own similar characteristics.

I have every confidence that a competent anthropologist would have no difficulty sorting those thousand skulls to the correct dig allowing for the possibility that there may be an outlier in there somewhere. The reason that they could sort them is that there are distinctive characteristics common in groups that differ from common characteristics common in other groups.

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

Is there a point in there somewhere? Maybe you aren't following the argument?

Is this supposed to somehow support or deny that there different and distinctive characteristics that pertain to different large groups of humanity?

 

[Toni]

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

Is there a point in there somewhere? Maybe you aren't following the argument?

Is this supposed to somehow support or deny that there distinctive characteristics that pertain do different large groups of humanity?

If you don’t know the answer, there’s no shame in saying so.

 

[skepticalbip]

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

Is there a point in there somewhere? Maybe you aren't following the argument?

Is this supposed to somehow support or deny that there distinctive characteristics that pertain do different large groups of humanity?

If you don’t know the answer, there’s no shame in saying so.

Ah, it was just a troll. You may want to address the topic of the conversation.

 

[Toni]

If you don’t know the answer, there’s no shame in saying so.

Ah, it was just a troll. You may want to address the topic of the conversation.

Ah, a dodge! How surprising!

So, either you don’t know the answer or you do know the answer and also understand the implications with respect to your premise.

Either way, it doesn’t matter.

 

[Politesse]

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.

I read your response, your argument is based on outliers (which are rare) as showing there is no general similarities of a group that is distinctive from the characteristics of other groups that have their own similar characteristics.

I have every confidence that a competent anthropologist would have no difficulty sorting those thousand skulls to the correct dig allowing for the possibility that there may be an outlier in there somewhere. The reason that they could sort them is that there are distinctive characteristics common in groups that differ from common characteristics common in other groups.

On what basis is that confidence? Because I have the keys to just such a lab, and my two colleagues who run it have plenty of mysterious cases. There are differences between crania; as I said, this was never in dispute. But those differences do not correspond in any meaningful sense to cultural categorizations of race, nor are genetics the only factor involved in osteological formation. An outlier is defined by its abberance from a clear established pattern. But with osteology, wide variance is the norm. There are no "groups" to be an outlier from, rather a vast and complicated web of phenotypical traits and environmental influences, within which small and isolated communities are predictably the most variant, while over large geographic areas distinctiveness levels out and only arbitrary and therefore frequently non-predictive "norms" could be drawn. Within the largest social categories we draw, variations in actual biological are stereotypically clinal rather than discrete, and as a result "outliers" are more common than "types" for any particular social categorization of race you might try to rely on.

On the bizarre off-chance that you are actually interested in how ethnic identifications are made in a forensics lab, and what it does or doesn't mean with respect to "race", I strongly recommend the special issue the APAA put out on this topic nine years back; the several articles in that volume do an excellent job of explaining exactly what is going on, why it works when it does, and why over-reliance on such taxonomic shortcuts has become a serious problem for the industry:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10968644/139/1

I note that this volume was extremely well-received; I don't recall any serious objections to any of its articles, rather, a lot of bio anthropologists were glad to see a comprehensive summary of the then-current consensus. This is only odd if you are, against all evidence, correct about how anthropologists routinely use racial categories to do their work. Why didn't those guys you say populate "most" of the field object to this strident take-down of the work you claim they do every day?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

I read your response, your argument is based on outliers (which are rare) as showing there is no general similarities of a group that is distinctive from the characteristics of other groups that have their own similar characteristics.

I have every confidence that a competent anthropologist would have no difficulty sorting those thousand skulls to the correct dig allowing for the possibility that there may be an outlier in there somewhere. The reason that they could sort them is that there are distinctive characteristics common in groups that differ from common characteristics common in other groups.

On what basis is that confidence? Because I have the keys to just such a lab, and my two colleagues who run it have plenty of mysterious cases. There are differences between crania; as I said, this was never in dispute. But those differences do not correspond in any meaningful sense to cultural categorizations of race, nor are genetics the only factor involved in osteological formation. An outlier is defined by its abberance from a clear established pattern. But with osteology, wide variance is the norm. There are no "groups" to be an outlier from, rather a vast and complicated web of phenotypical traits and environmental influences, within which small and isolated communities are predictably the most variant, while over large geographic areas distinctiveness levels out and only arbitrary and therefore frequently non-predictive "norms" could be drawn. Within the largest social categories we draw, variations in actual biological are stereotypically clinal rather than discrete, and as a result "outliers" are more common than "types" for any particular social categorization of race you might try to rely on.

On the bizarre off-chance that you are actually interested in how ethnic identifications are made in a forensics lab, and what it does or doesn't mean with respect to "race", I strongly recommend the special issue the APAA put out on this topic nine years back; the several articles in that volume do an excellent job of explaining exactly what is going on, why it works when it does, and why over-reliance on such taxonomic shortcuts has become a serious problem for the industry:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10968644/139/1

I note that this volume was extremely well-received; I don't recall any serious objections to any of its articles, rather, a lot of bio anthropologists were glad to see a comprehensive summary of the then-current consensus. This is only odd if you are, against all evidence, correct about how anthropologists routinely use racial categories to do their work. Why didn't those guys you say populate "most" of the field object to this strident take-down of the work you claim they do every day?

We are going around and around in circles. Your "There are differences between crania; as I said, this was never in dispute. But those differences do not correspond in any meaningful sense to cultural categorizations" would mean that the difference between a European skull and a skull from an Australian aboriginal are not meaningful enough to identify which was which. So those 1000 skulls could not be sorted.

If you think that those skulls can be categorized then it belies your quote above.

 

[Toni]

On what basis is that confidence? Because I have the keys to just such a lab, and my two colleagues who run it have plenty of mysterious cases. There are differences between crania; as I said, this was never in dispute. But those differences do not correspond in any meaningful sense to cultural categorizations of race, nor are genetics the only factor involved in osteological formation. An outlier is defined by its abberance from a clear established pattern. But with osteology, wide variance is the norm. There are no "groups" to be an outlier from, rather a vast and complicated web of phenotypical traits and environmental influences, within which small and isolated communities are predictably the most variant, while over large geographic areas distinctiveness levels out and only arbitrary and therefore frequently non-predictive "norms" could be drawn. Within the largest social categories we draw, variations in actual biological are stereotypically clinal rather than discrete, and as a result "outliers" are more common than "types" for any particular social categorization of race you might try to rely on.

On the bizarre off-chance that you are actually interested in how ethnic identifications are made in a forensics lab, and what it does or doesn't mean with respect to "race", I strongly recommend the special issue the APAA put out on this topic nine years back; the several articles in that volume do an excellent job of explaining exactly what is going on, why it works when it does, and why over-reliance on such taxonomic shortcuts has become a serious problem for the industry:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10968644/139/1

I note that this volume was extremely well-received; I don't recall any serious objections to any of its articles, rather, a lot of bio anthropologists were glad to see a comprehensive summary of the then-current consensus. This is only odd if you are, against all evidence, correct about how anthropologists routinely use racial categories to do their work. Why didn't those guys you say populate "most" of the field object to this strident take-down of the work you claim they do every day?

We are going around and around in circles. Your "There are differences between crania; as I said, this was never in dispute. But those differences do not correspond in any meaningful sense to cultural categorizations" would mean that the difference between a European skull and a skull from an Australian aboriginal are not meaning enough to identify which was which. So those 1000 skulls could not be sorted.

If you think that those skulls can be categorized then it belies your quote above.

In the image you shared upthread, skulls were sorted and identified by gender. How was this done? What is the significance?

 

[Trausti]

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.

I read your response, your argument is based on outliers (which are rare) as showing there is no general similarities of a group that is distinctive from the characteristics of other groups that have their own similar characteristics.

I have every confidence that a competent anthropologist would have no difficulty sorting those thousand skulls to the correct dig allowing for the possibility that there may be an outlier in there somewhere. The reason that they could sort them is that there are distinctive characteristics common in groups that differ from common characteristics common in other groups.

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

Probably, yes. Isn't that what forensics does when remains are found?

 

[Toni]

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

Probably, yes. Isn't that what forensics does when remains are found?

Doesn’t the same reasoning imply that female and male are separate races?

 

[Trausti]

A competent anthropologist could sort skulls according to sex as well, correct?

Also by age/stage of life?

Probably, yes. Isn't that what forensics does when remains are found?

Doesn’t the same reasoning imply that female and male are separate races?

No, separate sexes. That's what five million years of primate evolution does with a sexually dymorphic species.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I did not assume of course that he needed to do that in order to understand a topic. I know that he is mistaken because I have seen the evidence, arguments, etc., and I suggested a good source of information, but I make no assumption that he would need to read the threads in question in order to figure out that he is mistaken and understand the subject. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would not. He would have to think about the matter carefully, study the science if he has not already, and if he has, then take a look at the arguments that led him to the conclusion that there are no races, and think about them more carefully. Now I do not think he is likely to do that, because I've seen many people - some of them very intelligent - fail to realize their mistake and insist that there are no race, and show that their belief is the result of their commitment to an ideology, not of a rational assessment of the available information. I hope that Politesse is not among them and that he will figure out that there are races, but the exchange in this thread so far supports the hypothesis that he is.

 

[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.

I did not assume of course that he needed to do that in order to understand a topic. I know that he is mistaken because I have seen the evidence, arguments, etc., and I suggested a good source of information, but I make no assumption that he would need to read the threads in question in order to figure out that he is mistaken and understand the subject. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would not. He would have to think about the matter carefully, study the science if he has not already, and if he has, then take a look at the arguments that led him to the conclusion that there are no races, and think about them more carefully. Now I do not think he is likely to do that, because I've seen many people - some of them very intelligent - fail to realize their mistake and insist that there are no race, and show that their belief is the result of their commitment to an ideology, not of a rational assessment of the available information. I hope that Politesse is not among them and that he will figure out that there are races, but the exchange in this thread so far supports the hypothesis that he is.

I am afraid that I have missed entirely why anyone would give more credit to your reasoning than to that of Politesse. Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

 

[Trausti]

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.

I did not assume of course that he needed to do that in order to understand a topic. I know that he is mistaken because I have seen the evidence, arguments, etc., and I suggested a good source of information, but I make no assumption that he would need to read the threads in question in order to figure out that he is mistaken and understand the subject. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would not. He would have to think about the matter carefully, study the science if he has not already, and if he has, then take a look at the arguments that led him to the conclusion that there are no races, and think about them more carefully. Now I do not think he is likely to do that, because I've seen many people - some of them very intelligent - fail to realize their mistake and insist that there are no race, and show that their belief is the result of their commitment to an ideology, not of a rational assessment of the available information. I hope that Politesse is not among them and that he will figure out that there are races, but the exchange in this thread so far supports the hypothesis that he is.

It is curious. On this board many seem to understand evolution and natural selection, and in turn make fun of the "answers in genesis" types who view humans as special and divine and separate from other animals. Yet, when the topic is humans, these same people become creationists. And for the same reason.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

He actually doesn't

I read the threads. He does. But if you have a counter argument, or counter evidence, etc., I'd like to see it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

But why do you consider it is rule to call someone a racist, if by 'racist' you only mean 'someone who believes that races are real'?
I would say that it would be rude, no doubt, because that is not what 'racist' means, and also, because 'racist' is derogatory. But it's not merely a derogatory way of saying that someone believes that races are real. Saying that someone is a racist is not the same as, say, calling him, say, 'A person who is an ignoramus for being a race realist'. That would be derogatory - and misguided, given that race realism is true. But it's not the sort of insult that 'racist' entails. A good analogy: I might say I use the term 'racist' to mean 'a person who votes for Trump', but it would be pretty rude to call people who vote for Trump 'racists'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I did not assume of course that he needed to do that in order to understand a topic. I know that he is mistaken because I have seen the evidence, arguments, etc., and I suggested a good source of information, but I make no assumption that he would need to read the threads in question in order to figure out that he is mistaken and understand the subject. In fact, I'm pretty sure he would not. He would have to think about the matter carefully, study the science if he has not already, and if he has, then take a look at the arguments that led him to the conclusion that there are no races, and think about them more carefully. Now I do not think he is likely to do that, because I've seen many people - some of them very intelligent - fail to realize their mistake and insist that there are no race, and show that their belief is the result of their commitment to an ideology, not of a rational assessment of the available information. I hope that Politesse is not among them and that he will figure out that there are races, but the exchange in this thread so far supports the hypothesis that he is.

I am afraid that I have missed entirely why anyone would give more credit to your reasoning than to that of Politesse. Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Well, I can think of a few good reasons, but that is not relevant to your objections, because I'm not claiming that you people should give more credit to my reasoning or my claims that there are races. I said that ApostateAbe and Bomb#20 already gave much better evidence and arguments than I could. Their arguments and evidence suffice. Why? Well, because of their content. In other words, I'm not making an argument from authority. Rather, I'm saying, look, the evidence is over there if you want to take a look. If you do not want to take a look, that's that.

Now, if you want to know how I know that he is mistaken, it's because I've already seen the evidence, arguments, etc. Why should you believe me instead of him? If you're not familiar with my posts, I have no authority argument to make. But since I was not trying to make such an argument, that's not a problem. You should believe me if you read the relevant threads and understand them, but not because I say so or because of my record, but simply because of the content of the threads. If you do not read them, then that's that. I don't claim that you should believe me. But you accused me of being arrogant, which is false and was unwarranted on the basis of the relevant available information, as you had no good reason to reckon that I was being arrogant.

 

[Toni]

I am afraid that I have missed entirely why anyone would give more credit to your reasoning than to that of Politesse. Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Well, I can think of a few good reasons, but that is not relevant to your objections, because I'm not claiming that you people should give more credit to my reasoning or my claims that there are races. I said that ApostateAbe and Bomb#20 already gave much better evidence and arguments than I could. Their arguments and evidence suffice. Why? Well, because of their content. In other words, I'm not making an argument from authority. Rather, I'm saying, look, the evidence is over there if you want to take a look. If you do not want to take a look, that's that.

So: internet posts constitute evidence. But professional expertise does not. Alrighty. I think I understand you quite well.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am afraid that I have missed entirely why anyone would give more credit to your reasoning than to that of Politesse. Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Well, I can think of a few good reasons, but that is not relevant to your objections, because I'm not claiming that you people should give more credit to my reasoning or my claims that there are races. I said that ApostateAbe and Bomb#20 already gave much better evidence and arguments than I could. Their arguments and evidence suffice. Why? Well, because of their content. In other words, I'm not making an argument from authority. Rather, I'm saying, look, the evidence is over there if you want to take a look. If you do not want to take a look, that's that.

So: internet posts constitute evidence. But professional expertise does not. Alrighty. I think I understand you quite well.

Of course, internet posts constitute evidence. Of course, claims made by professionals constitute evidence. And plenty of other things constitute evidence. But these particular internet posts constitute good evidence because the arguments contained in them, which includes analysis of of scientific studies, also relevant links, etc. Additionally, they explain in sufficient detail a number of reasoning errors made by people who, in those threads, deny the existence of race.

Now, regarding professional expertise, of course there are people with expertise who agree that there are races. You will find experts on both sides on the issue. So, evidently, some people with expertise got it wrong. For that matter, there are professional philosophers who claim that Jesus is God, resurrected, etc., whereas other professionals deny it. In fact, most professional philosophers specialized in philosophy of religion are Christians. But they're wrong. And I can tell in part by...arguments in blog posts! (though in this case, I usually go by my own arguments, but I recognize good arguments made by others as well).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, we have some disagreement here over if race exists. Do we all agree that gender exists? If so, then it seems gender is a firmer concept than race.

So, if I can get you to regard me as a woman, because I identify as a woman, why can't I get you to regard me as a Latina because I identify as that?