If flat-Earthers argued like race-deniers

[ApostateAbe]

All facts. Look them up.

 

[bigfield]

Can you quote examples of each of these arguments from people on this forum who disagree with your claims?

An example that I remember:

...the three-race scheme is still commonly used among forensic anthropologists, for good reasons.

Which is similar to: "Almost every geographer, geodesist and cartographer in the world relies on flat maps of the world? Are you calling them wrong?"

 

[ApostateAbe]

Can you quote examples of each of these arguments from people on this forum who disagree with your claims?

An example that I remember:

...the three-race scheme is still commonly used among forensic anthropologists, for good reasons.

Which is similar to: "Almost every geographer, geodesist and cartographer in the world relies on flat maps of the world? Are you calling them wrong?"

It is less about what i have seen in this forum and more a matter of what i have seen commonly in the academic and pop science literature. When i said that the three race scheme is still commonly used by forensic anthropologists, it was to correct your preceding claim that the scheme was outdated. You cited a text that was over a hundred years old, strangely, as evidence that it was outdated. Just search for those same terms on Google Scholar. You can limit to only recent results. And, if you would like those good reasons, i can give that too: correlated clusters of osteological traits according to those three races, expected from such evolutionary divergence.

 

[bigfield]

It is less about what i have seen in this forum and more a matter of what i have seen commonly in the academic and pop science literature.

Without seeing the original arguments that you are lampooning, there is no way to tell whether or not the OP is a straw man.

When i said that the three race scheme is still commonly used by forensic anthropologists, it was to correct your preceding claim that the scheme was outdated. You cited a text that was over a hundred years old, strangely, as evidence that it was outdated.

It's outdated because it is wrong, not simply because it is old.

Just search for those same terms on Google Scholar. You can limit to only recent results. And, if you would like those good reasons, i can give that too: correlated clusters of osteological traits according to those three races, expected from such evolutionary divergence.

I did as you suggested, but I didn't find a source that sorts the world's populations into the three folk racial categories.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Without seeing the original arguments that you are lampooning, there is no way to tell whether or not the OP is a straw man.

When i said that the three race scheme is still commonly used by forensic anthropologists, it was to correct your preceding claim that the scheme was outdated. You cited a text that was over a hundred years old, strangely, as evidence that it was outdated.

It's outdated because it is wrong, not simply because it is old.

Just search for those same terms on Google Scholar. You can limit to only recent results. And, if you would like those good reasons, i can give that too: correlated clusters of osteological traits according to those three races, expected from such evolutionary divergence.

I did as you suggested, but I didn't find a source that sorts the world's populations into the three folk racial categories.

"I did as you suggested, but I didn't find a source that sorts the world's populations into the three folk racial categories."

OK, allow me to help. I limited my search on Google Scholar to "since 2012." Here is a sampling of results of articles that positively cite the three-race scheme of caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.

• https://www.researchgate.net/profil...Tooth_Size/links/00b7d5323c7ba3aede000000.pdf
• http://fulltext.study/preview/pdf/103131.pdf
• http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...=Morphoscopic_Traits_and_the_Assessment_o.pdf
• http://nmcth.edu/images/gallery/Original Article/Shrestha_A.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/public...fected_individual_and_its_influencing_factors

"Without seeing the original arguments that you are lampooning, there is no way to tell whether or not the OP is a straw man."

I can hunt down an example if there is a specific point you doubt the most.

 

[Bomb#20]

I did as you suggested, but I didn't find a source that sorts the world's populations into the three folk racial categories.

Oh for the love of god. Have you completely lost touch with reality, or are you simply confused as to the meaning of the phrase "folk category"?

Folk categories:

Europeans are White people.
Middle Easterners and North Africans are Brown people.​

Technical category invented by professional anthropologists for their own use because it's more predictive than categories used by common folk -- pretty much the canonical example of a non-folk category:

Europeans and Middle Easterners and North Africans are Caucasoids.​

FYI, "folk category" does not mean "category from a theory I disagree with".

 

[bigfield]

I did as you suggested, but I didn't find a source that sorts the world's populations into the three folk racial categories.

"I did as you suggested, but I didn't find a source that sorts the world's populations into the three folk racial categories."

OK, allow me to help. I limited my search on Google Scholar to "since 2012." Here is a sampling of results of articles that positively cite the three-race scheme of caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.

• https://www.researchgate.net/profil...Tooth_Size/links/00b7d5323c7ba3aede000000.pdf
• http://fulltext.study/preview/pdf/103131.pdf
• http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...=Morphoscopic_Traits_and_the_Assessment_o.pdf
• http://nmcth.edu/images/gallery/Original Article/Shrestha_A.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/public...fected_individual_and_its_influencing_factors

Malik et al:

Racial determination from the skull and teeth is notoriouslydifficult, but separation into the main Caucasoid, Negroid, andMongoloid racial groups may be possible using cranial and facialmorphology. Many racial traits have also been described in individ-ual teeth. For example, the evaginated odontome on the occlusal sur-face of premolars in Chinese persons and the shovel-shaped incisorof the Mongoloids might eliminate a Caucasoid origin (David, 1994)

David is probably supposed to be Whittaker. I can't access Whittaker and continue to trace the sources.

Mehta et al:

According to craniofacial features and other skeletal differences,
skeletal remains are mainly attributed to one of three population
groups: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. Individuals that belong
to the Caucasoid or “White” group may be found in America, Europe,
the Near East, India and North Africa. The Negroid or “Black” group is
found in sub-Saharan Africa and the Mongoloid or “Asian” group
consists of the Native American groups and the people of the Far
East. In addition to the categories listed above there are countless
combinations that may result from the mixture of these groups.

No citation provided.

Hefner et al

The research described in this chapter has clearly established that the “typical”morphoscopic traits of African-, Asian-, and European-derived groups commonly
used by forensic anthropologists to assess ancestry in unknown skeletal remains are
not found at the expected frequencies that would warrant confidence in “accurate”
assessments. This traditional, visual approach, which focuses on extreme trait expressions
(i.e., a single character state) for these morphoscopic traits, is not very reliable
and has no scientific basis.

I haven't had time to go through Hefner et al to trace back sources, but you should know that this article is not the positive citation you think it is.

Shrestha et al:

The human body dimensions are affected by geographical,
racial, gender, and age factors. Physical measurements can be
worked out and used in differentiation of racial phenotypes.
Basically, there are 3 types of race - Caucasoid, Negroid,
and Mongoloid. There are 3 types of nose as classifi ed by
anthropologists - leptorrhine, mesorrhine, chamaerrhine.

Shrestha et al cites Rajlakshmi, who says:

There are well documented differences in facial structures between ethnic groups.

Rajlakshmi cites Farkas and Hajnis. Farkis is concerned solely with North American whites, and I couldn't find Hajnis.

Rakhshan et al use the three race scheme without providing a citation.

When I did a search on Google Scholar, I wasn't simply looking for "articles that positively cite the three-race scheme of caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid." That is not a good way to judge the validity of the scheme.

"Without seeing the original arguments that you are lampooning, there is no way to tell whether or not the OP is a straw man."

I can hunt down an example if there is a specific point you doubt the most.

Please support all of the comparisons in the OP with examples.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When you call 9/11 and police ask for a description of the alleged perpetrator(s), they say, "were they black, white, or hispanic?"

Proper response is "they looked kinda Hispanic" because you'll always be right.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Please support all of the comparisons in the OP with examples.

No, first you should be specific. You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

 

[ApostateAbe]

When you call 9/11 and police ask for a description of the alleged perpetrator(s), they say, "were they black, white, or hispanic?"

Proper response is "they looked kinda Hispanic" because you'll always be right.

Even if the perpetrator is Japanese? Every color is intermediately reddish, some more, some less, but that doesn't mean that all colors are effectively homogeneous.

 

[bigfield]

Please support all of the comparisons in the OP with examples.

No, first you should be specific.

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

Articles that "positively cite the three-race scheme" are not, in and of themselves, evidence of the scheme's validity. Journal articles are considered reliable sources because they base their claims on evidence, either referenced from other sources or from original research. I followed the articles' citations relevant to the scheme but those references do not lead to evidence that the three-race scheme is accura

 

[ApostateAbe]

No, first you should be specific.

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

Articles that "positively cite the three-race scheme" are not, in and of themselves, evidence of the scheme's validity. Journal articles are considered reliable sources because they base their claims on evidence, either referenced from other sources or from original research. I followed the articles' citations relevant to the scheme but those references do not lead to evidence that the three-race scheme is accurate.

OK, that's fine, just different goalposts from the initial claim that the three race scheme is "outdated." Maybe i will track down such a statistical validation, but at another time if so.

 

[bigfield]

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

Articles that "positively cite the three-race scheme" are not, in and of themselves, evidence of the scheme's validity. Journal articles are considered reliable sources because they base their claims on evidence, either referenced from other sources or from original research. I followed the articles' citations relevant to the scheme but those references do not lead to evidence that the three-race scheme is accurate.

OK, that's fine, just different goalposts from the initial claim that the three race scheme is "outdated." Maybe i will track down such a statistical validation, but at another time if so.

My criticism was, specifically: "It makes no sense to defend the 19th-century classifications of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; that is a classification scheme used by outdated reference materials such as the Konversationslexikon, and as you have pointed out, it is not accurate science."

I've been consistent in saying that the scheme is not accurate science--the goal posts are still in the same place.

 

[untermensche]

All living organisms show diversity.

All humans show diversity.

They all show equal diversity.

None is more diverse than another. None is more evolved than another.

One merely has different close relatives from another and different stimulations.

It is possible to make artificial groupings of diversity. And call these inventions "race".

But they are just artificial man-made boundaries in a sea of diversity.

Nothing real.

 

[Trausti]

All living organisms show diversity.

All humans show diversity.

They all show equal diversity.

None is more diverse than another. None is more evolved than another.

One merely has different close relatives from another and different stimulations.

It is possible to make artificial groupings of diversity. And call these inventions "race".

But they are just artificial man-made boundaries in a sea of diversity.

Nothing real.

Just like species; which are also just artificial man-made groupings. Nothing real.

 

[untermensche]

All living organisms show diversity.

All humans show diversity.

They all show equal diversity.

None is more diverse than another. None is more evolved than another.

One merely has different close relatives from another and different stimulations.

It is possible to make artificial groupings of diversity. And call these inventions "race".

But they are just artificial man-made boundaries in a sea of diversity.

Nothing real.

Just like species; which are also just artificial man-made groupings. Nothing real.

Breeding viable offspring is something.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When you call 9/11 and police ask for a description of the alleged perpetrator(s), they say, "were they black, white, or hispanic?"

Proper response is "they looked kinda Hispanic" because you'll always be right.

Even if the perpetrator is Japanese? Every color is intermediately reddish, some more, some less, but that doesn't mean that all colors are effectively homogeneous.

Japanese Peruvians are Hispanic.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Even if the perpetrator is Japanese? Every color is intermediately reddish, some more, some less, but that doesn't mean that all colors are effectively homogeneous.

Japanese Peruvians are Hispanic.

Are their allele frequencies effectively the same as that of Japanese of completely Japanese descent, in your opinion? Not that it's a matter of opinion.

 

[ApostateAbe]

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

Articles that "positively cite the three-race scheme" are not, in and of themselves, evidence of the scheme's validity. Journal articles are considered reliable sources because they base their claims on evidence, either referenced from other sources or from original research. I followed the articles' citations relevant to the scheme but those references do not lead to evidence that the three-race scheme is accurate.

OK, that's fine, just different goalposts from the initial claim that the three race scheme is "outdated." Maybe i will track down such a statistical validation, but at another time if so.

My criticism was, specifically: "It makes no sense to defend the 19th-century classifications of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; that is a classification scheme used by outdated reference materials such as the Konversationslexikon, and as you have pointed out, it is not accurate science."

I've been consistent in saying that the scheme is not accurate science--the goal posts are still in the same place.

The 2004 IEEE proceeding titled, "Ethnicity Estimation with Facial Images" reports an algorithm of facial observation that classifies faces into the three-race scheme, with 94% accuracy. But, I don't have access to the full text.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Japanese Peruvians are Hispanic.

Are their allele frequencies effectively the same as that of Japanese of completely Japanese descent, in your opinion? Not that it's a matter of opinion.

Who knows, but since you've been defining race as a population with an allele frequency, Hispanic qualifies as a race according to your definition, i.e., all populations have an average allele frequency.