Duke Leto
Deleted
Why is this garbage not in Pseudoscience or Elsewhere?
Last edited:
I suggest you simply add me to your ignore list, and that will solve your personal problem.Why is this garbage not in Pseudoscience or Elsewhere.
If the argument is less about the ACCURACY of a science and more about the UTILITY of it, then I think it encourages too much myopia, and I don't think that is where the debate should be, given the choice. Regardless, the study of human races ties into human genetic diversity generally. The most obvious immediate use of the science of race is to guide medical doctors toward accurate diagnoses. Family history, age and behavior patterns of the patient all have intermediate affects on disease frequencies, and so does race. Much of the debate is focused on sickle-cell disease among black Africans or Tay-Sachs disease among Jews, but there is actually a long list of diseases that are significantly more common among whites. Here is such a list:have you ever looked at a scientific article? There is most always a straw man set up to be destroyed by findings. So it is with the straw man of race.
My meaning in my previous post was toward the scientific utility of the discussion which has become nil.
http://www.ranker.com/list/caucasian-race-diseases-with-this-risk-factor/reference
I suggest you simply add me to your ignore list, and that will solve your personal problem.Why is this garbage not in Pseudoscience or Elsewhere.
I suggest you simply add me to your ignore list, and that will solve your personal problem.Why is this garbage not in Pseudoscience or Elsewhere.
Naw its better to put topics on the ignore list.
Unlikely, as this really is social science, even if you don't agree with it. If PBS can tolerate both the correct side and the incorrect side of a scientific debate, without pushing the correct side into a poisoned well, then there is a possibility you can too, if only slight.time for pseudoscience or elsewhere......
On ignore or not, this thread should be in pseudoscience.I suggest you simply add me to your ignore list, and that will solve your personal problem.Why is this garbage not in Pseudoscience or Elsewhere.
The PBS website has a page titled, "Does Race Exist?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html), that presents two sides of the race debate (in contrast to its 2003 debacle "Race: The Power of an Illusion," that was purely one-sided in favor of the wrong side). The antagonist is the anthropologist C. Loring Brace, and the proponent is the forensic anthropologist George W. Gill. I agree with everything written by George W. Gill, and I will discuss my points of disagreement with C. Loring Brace, summarized in two fallacies. If you disagree with George W. Gill, then I am happy to hear your explanations of disagreement.
Gill said:Yet I do see why many other physical anthropologists are able to ignore or deny the race concept. Blood-factor analysis, for instance, shows many traits that cut across racial boundaries in a purely clinal fashion with very few if any "breaks" along racial boundaries. (A cline is a gradient of change, such as from people with a high frequency of blue eyes, as in Scandinavia, to people with a high frequency of brown eyes, as in Africa.)
...
So, serologists who work largely with blood factors will tend to see human variation as clinal and races as not a valid construct,
(1) Continuum fallacy. This fallacy is otherwise known as the "fallacy of the beard," and the example goes like this: "If the stubble on your chin grows another micrometer, does that make it a beard? Suppose it grows another micrometer, and then another micrometer. Can you choose any one of those growth points as the point where your facial hair went from mere stubble to a beard? Yes? Then there is only the tiniest difference between stubble and a beard. No? In that case, beards are impossible. They don't exist.
Gill said:As a middle-aged male, for example, I am not so sure that I believe any longer in the chronological "age" categories that many of my colleagues in skeletal biology use. Certainly parts of the skeletons of some 45-year-old people look older than corresponding portions of the skeletons of some 55-year-olds. If, however, law enforcement calls upon me to provide "age" on a skeleton, I can provide an answer that will be proven sufficiently accurate should the decedent eventually be identified. I may not believe in society's "age" categories, but I can be very effective at "aging" skeletons
Here is an idea. Why not have one of these genetic race folks look over a random set of genetic test results and then they can tell us which race each set belongs to.Unlikely, as this really is social science, even if you don't agree with it. If PBS can tolerate both the correct side and the incorrect side of a scientific debate, without pushing the correct side into a poisoned well, then there is a possibility you can too, if only slight.
Oh, come on Abe. You know very well ideology trumps science on this forum. It's okay to ridicule a christian for denying evolution or natural selection; but to say that evolution and natural selection applies to humans is just heresy. Heresy!
Thanks for thoughts on this, Togo. I will answer your questions.I agree with Gill, and disagree with you. I'd like to take issue with the parts where you disagree with Gill. Is that ok?
Gill writes:
Gill said:Yet I do see why many other physical anthropologists are able to ignore or deny the race concept. Blood-factor analysis, for instance, shows many traits that cut across racial boundaries in a purely clinal fashion with very few if any "breaks" along racial boundaries. (A cline is a gradient of change, such as from people with a high frequency of blue eyes, as in Scandinavia, to people with a high frequency of brown eyes, as in Africa.)
...
So, serologists who work largely with blood factors will tend to see human variation as clinal and races as not a valid construct,
He goes onto to discuss how this does not apply in his own work, with bones, where phenotypical differences are less gradual.
Do you agree with Gill that where differences are clinal, race is a not a valid or useful construct?
You then raise this point:
(1) Continuum fallacy. This fallacy is otherwise known as the "fallacy of the beard," and the example goes like this: "If the stubble on your chin grows another micrometer, does that make it a beard? Suppose it grows another micrometer, and then another micrometer. Can you choose any one of those growth points as the point where your facial hair went from mere stubble to a beard? Yes? Then there is only the tiniest difference between stubble and a beard. No? In that case, beards are impossible. They don't exist.
It seems like you're raising a straw man. here. Both scientists describe the problem of gradual variations defeating the utility of race. Neither one argues that the fact of gradual variation means that racial labels are 'impossible', as you imply. Instead the point is that in a gradual continuum, categorising people into races becomes arbitrary and useless.
Gill goes into this point in some detail, using the practice of dividing people into age bands, and then making generalisations about them. He states:
Gill said:As a middle-aged male, for example, I am not so sure that I believe any longer in the chronological "age" categories that many of my colleagues in skeletal biology use. Certainly parts of the skeletons of some 45-year-old people look older than corresponding portions of the skeletons of some 55-year-olds. If, however, law enforcement calls upon me to provide "age" on a skeleton, I can provide an answer that will be proven sufficiently accurate should the decedent eventually be identified. I may not believe in society's "age" categories, but I can be very effective at "aging" skeletons
Gill regards age categories as imperfect and potentially meaningless, because they are arbitrary classifications along a graduated scale. There's no scientific basis to use 30-45 as opposed to 40-50. The categories themselves are bunk. But that doesn't mean there are no age differences between people.
Similarly most scientists, who discard race as a useful concept, are not somehow denying genetic differences between individuals, nor are they saying it's impossible to stick racial tags on groups of people. They're just saying it's bunk - there's no scientific basis for the labels, which exists purely to divide a continuum into arbitrary sections.
The problem with that conclusion, one reached by both of the scientists that you quote, is that it renders your conclusions invalid. It means that you can't meaningfully say that black people in aggregate get one score, or Asians in aggregate another, because the aggregations have no scientific basis for the trait you're claiming to measure, or the genetics you believe underlie it.
I couldn't find either scientist talking about convergent evolution, or using the fallacy you describe.
And yes, can we please move this discussion to pseudoscience, where it belongs.
Thanks for thoughts on this, Togo. I will answer your questions.I agree with Gill, and disagree with you. I'd like to take issue with the parts where you disagree with Gill. Is that ok?
Do you agree with Gill that where differences are clinal, race is a not a valid or useful construct?
(1) Continuum fallacy. This fallacy is otherwise known as the "fallacy of the beard," and the example goes like this: "If the stubble on your chin grows another micrometer, does that make it a beard? Suppose it grows another micrometer, and then another micrometer. Can you choose any one of those growth points as the point where your facial hair went from mere stubble to a beard? Yes? Then there is only the tiniest difference between stubble and a beard. No? In that case, beards are impossible. They don't exist.
It seems like you're raising a straw man. here. Both scientists describe the problem of gradual variations defeating the utility of race. Neither one argues that the fact of gradual variation means that racial labels are 'impossible', as you imply. Instead the point is that in a gradual continuum, categorising people into races becomes arbitrary and useless.
Gill regards age categories as imperfect and potentially meaningless, because they are arbitrary classifications along a graduated scale. There's no scientific basis to use 30-45 as opposed to 40-50. The categories themselves are bunk. But that doesn't mean there are no age differences between people.
Similarly most scientists, who discard race as a useful concept, are not somehow denying genetic differences between individuals, nor are they saying it's impossible to stick racial tags on groups of people. They're just saying it's bunk - there's no scientific basis for the labels, which exists purely to divide a continuum into arbitrary sections.
The problem with that conclusion, one reached by both of the scientists that you quote, is that it renders your conclusions invalid. It means that you can't meaningfully say that black people in aggregate get one score, or Asians in aggregate another, because the aggregations have no scientific basis for the trait you're claiming to measure, or the genetics you believe underlie it.
And yes, can we please move this discussion to pseudoscience, where it belongs.
"Do you agree with Gill that where differences are clinal, race is a not a valid or useful construct?"
I do not agree with that statement, nor do I agree with the assertion that Gill made such a claim (he was referring to what others will "will tend to see").
Even if races are gradual (and I assert that they are), it does NOT follow that racial categorizations are useless, for the reason I described (continuum fallacy).
[I think Gill's point about the difference in perspectives between forensic anthropologists (who look at bones) and serologists (who look at blood) is that one set of patterns follows consistent geographic boundaries and another set of patterns is more randomized, where the boundaries could be anywhere. The difference is NOT that one sees gradations and the other does not.
"It seems like you're raising a straw man. here. Both scientists describe the problem of gradual variations defeating the utility of race. Neither one argues that the fact of gradual variation means that racial labels are 'impossible', as you imply. Instead the point is that in a gradual continuum, categorising people into races becomes arbitrary and useless."
That is an odd opinion to attribute to BOTH writers. Please review this statement of Gill again, and tell me again that he thinks that categorizing people into races is "arbitrary and useless":
I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
This is what Gill wrote about age:
As a middle-aged male, for example, I am not so sure that I believe any longer in the chronological "age" categories that many of my colleagues in skeletal biology use. Certainly parts of the skeletons of some 45-year-old people look older than corresponding portions of the skeletons of some 55-year-olds. If, however, law enforcement calls upon me to provide "age" on a skeleton, I can provide an answer that will be proven sufficiently accurate should the decedent eventually be identified. I may not believe in society's "age" categories, but I can be very effective at "aging" skeletons.
Read it again: "As a middle-aged male, for example, I am not so sure that I believe any longer in the chronological 'age' categories..." Maybe it isn't so obvious to everyone, but he was telling a joke! And you seemed to be interpreting it perfectly literally! He is giving an argument against the continuum fallacy, not denying the importance of age categories, but the opposite!
On ignore or not, this thread should be in pseudoscience.I suggest you simply add me to your ignore list, and that will solve your personal problem.
Why have you decided in advance that a question is unscientific even though you can think of a way to settle it by experiment, and even though your proposed experiment has not yet been carried out?Here is an idea. Why not have one of these genetic race folks look over a random set of genetic test results and then they can tell us which race each set belongs to.Oh, come on Abe. You know very well ideology trumps science on this forum. It's okay to ridicule a christian for denying evolution or natural selection; but to say that evolution and natural selection applies to humans is just heresy. Heresy!
Tang et al, "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies," 2004.Here is an idea. Why not have one of these genetic race folks look over a random set of genetic test results and then they can tell us which race each set belongs to.Oh, come on Abe. You know very well ideology trumps science on this forum. It's okay to ridicule a christian for denying evolution or natural selection; but to say that evolution and natural selection applies to humans is just heresy. Heresy!
Tang et al, "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies," 2004.Here is an idea. Why not have one of these genetic race folks look over a random set of genetic test results and then they can tell us which race each set belongs to.
Abstract:
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic
population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure
Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African
American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States
and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed
near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On
the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/
ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.
If you would like the full study, send me your email address in a private message.
I don't have a study with a random genetic set, but I think we already agree on the science. Yes, we really can identify races based on genes alone.Tang et al, "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies," 2004.
Abstract:
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic
population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure
Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African
American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States
and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed
near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On
the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/
ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.
If you would like the full study, send me your email address in a private message.
What in "random genetic set" is hard to understand?
That phenotype can be traced back to genes is not something you really have to show....
I don't have a study with a random genetic set, but I think we already agree on the science. Yes, we really can identify races based on genes alone.What in "random genetic set" is hard to understand?
That phenotype can be traced back to genes is not something you really have to show....
The study of Tang et al identified races based on genotypes (cluster analysis), not phenotypes, but, whatever the case, they are identifying races based on genes. This is established science. It is denied only by changing the meanings of words so that "race" doesn't mean "race." Political races with cut and dry discrete boundaries are not biological, but human "races" as Darwin (and the long tradition of evolutionary biology that followed him) understood the word most certainly are biological.I don't have a study with a random genetic set, but I think we already agree on the science. Yes, we really can identify races based on genes alone.
No, you can just identify phenotypes from genes which is bloody obvious. There are no races.