Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 16 17 18 19 20 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

(2015-Apr-28, 22:43:17)Krom Wrote: Would you agree a definition of a race is a meta-population? "a regional group of connected populations [of a species]".


As noted, I distinguish between a general concept/definition and specific ones. My general is: "intra-specific natural divisions". Insofar as "a regional group of connected populations [of a species]" is actually a natural divisions, it would constitute a specific definition of race. As I discussed in section III-A, these types of zoological definitions lend themselves to misreading. Which is why e.g., Mayr and O'Brien attempt to clarify the definition by qualifying which types of populations could be races -- e.g., members must have a shared natural history, a shared set of inherited traits, etc.

Quote:What it seems to come down to, is that you see significant-enough "breaks" in genetic/phenotypic variation at the continental level, to justify a racial classification in the sense of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid, while I am saying these are incredibly weak and do not support the race concept as being useful.

It doesn't seem as if you understood anything at all. While I see breaks on the continental level, I don't require races, in general, to have these -- If I did I wouldn't have a general concept. I made that point numerous times. Krom races seem to just be an exclusive subtype of my general races.
 Reply
(2015-Apr-28, 23:40:08)Chuck Wrote: I would consider myself to be a race realist and yet my races can be cut from a continuum. Steve Sailer and Michael Levin, two other self-described realists, allow for the same. Obviously different meanings of "realism" are afloat. For clarity, we can simply call your type "Krom-race realism". I have already noted my problems with this:


I would say its not realism because you/I provide no arguments race is extra-mental. Those ontology debates are confined to philosophy.

Quote:1) Historically intraspecific races were not thought this way. Discontinuities evidenced species, continuities races.

2) Presently, many self-proclaimed "race realists" do not have a problem with continuities.
3) Presently, taxa subspecies can be cut from continua.

There are no discrete biological boundaries. Rather think of a slope between two extremes: flat, 0 degrees, and perpendicular, 90 degrees. Obviously a certain degree of slope is required for classification, so it could be considerably flat, i.e. you quoted Ehrhard (1784): "differ from one another in small particulars of little importance", compared to a much steeper slope, of 60+ degrees.

Why I reject your race position, is Linnaean races like "Homo Europaeus" basically correspond to a slope of 1 degrees.

Genetic clusters between continents capture < 2% of variation.

This is obviously far less than what Ehrhard had in mind.

Handley, Lori J. Lawson, et al. (2007). "Going the distance: human population genetics in a clinal world." Trends in Genetics. 23(9): 432-439.
 Reply
(2015-Apr-28, 23:40:08)Chuck Wrote: I actually employ "realism" in an ontological sense. You do not. What I mean is that "the concept references something in nature". What you mean is that "that which is referenced, at least when it comes to humans, is worth my attention".


You don't have any ontology: "the concept references something in nature" is not an ontological argument unless you can show "something" (a category of being) is natural in the sense of being mind-independent. Otherwise your concept of nature is just in your head and doesn't reflect the real world.

Quote:Maybe you should call "Krom-race realism" something else. Do you at least apply the formulation consistently? If climatic zones run seamlessly into one another are they not real. Are clines (i.e., character gradients) by definition also not real? Or do races alone need to show "abrupt, or sharp" breaks to be "real"? Why?

I've criticized 'race realism' for being a misnomer. The debate in science is whether race is a useful concept; taxonomy and classification is based on convenience. When I've debated "race realists" in the past I've also won, because unless they can show races are mind-independent, they aren't talking about what is "real" (an no one can even demonstrate they are real, let alone a race).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
 Reply
(2015-Apr-30, 00:41:29)Krom Wrote: Why I reject your race position, is Linnaean races like "Homo Europaeus" basically correspond to a slope of 1 degrees.

Genetic clusters between continents capture < 2% of variation.

This is obviously far less than what Ehrhard had in mind.

Handley, Lori J. Lawson, et al. (2007). "Going the distance: human population genetics in a clinal world." Trends in Genetics. 23(9): 432-439.


If you wish to continue this discussion comment here. I do not wish to clog up this review thread anymore, especially as you are not providing any thoughtful critiques. (Relocate the comments above which you wish me to address.)

Again, you obviously did not bother to read through my paper. You said, for example, "Linnaean races like "Homo Europaeus" basically correspond to a slope of 1 degrees". As I discussed, Linnaeus did not have a race concept. For him, "Homo Europaeus" was an environmentally induced inconstant variety of the 100% homogeneous in nature species of Homo sapiens. By his systematics, humans were identical by biological nature, so human varieties would have explained 0% of what we would now call "genetic" variation. Try again.
 Reply
Its not the case I didn't read it, it is you are wrong and are distorting what Linnaeus, Kant, Blumenbach etc state. I already provided the following example which you totally ignored:

"There seems to be so great a difference between the Ethiopian, the white, and the red American". - Blumenbach

Your arguments all these early writers supported the trivial/minor variation are wrong, so your race concept is completely flawed from the start. If you actually read these early sources properly they set major/great differences between the races, not trivial variation. I could give you 100+ more quotes like above. They are all in This is Race by Earl Count (1950), a compendium on early literature on race. You ignore all of them, and then just cherrypick one or two where minor variation is mentioned. But anyway, bye.
 Reply
Quote:Your arguments all these early writers supported the trivial/minor variation are wrong, so your race concept is completely flawed from the start. If you actually read these early sources properly they set major/great differences between the races, not trivial variation. I could give you 100+ more quotes like above. They are all in This is Race by Earl Count (1950), a compendium on early literature on race.

As I said, my primary concern in the paper is with the intraspecific race concept - not with how human groups were once perceived or even with specific human racial classifications. (This is why my front cover depicts two strawberry races.) The race concept is and was always a pan-species one, one which originally described "constant varieties". Now, as I have said, races were not seen as necessarily entailing large or significant differences. Species often were not either. Thus, there was a species splitter problem, which I discussed -- see: Stamos (2012).

You seem to be confusing historic concepts of intraspecific race with historic perceptions of human race differences. Yet, how human races were perceived is irrelevant to how the intraspecific race concept was understood. As for humans, I did note that monogenists (those who argued that human groups represented intraspecific races, not species) downplayed the magnitudes of differences. Those who argued that the groups represented species, on the other hand, emphasized the size of the differences. Thus, we have your quote from Blumenbach:

"There seems to be so great a difference between the Ethiopian, the white, and the red American, that it is not wonderful, if men of even of great reputation have considered then as forming different species of mankind...."

But Blumenbach doesn't agree that groups represent different species. He emphasizes:

In the first place, then, there is an almost insensible and indefinable transition from the pure white skin of the German lady through the yellow, the red, and the nations, to the Ethiopian of the very deepest black, and we may observe this, as we said just now in the case of stature, in the space of a few degrees of latitude...It is scarce worth while to notice the well-known differences which occurs in the inhabitants of one and the same country, whose skin varies wonderfully in colour, according to the kind of life they lead. The face of the working man or the artisan exposed to the forces of the sun and weather, differs as much from the cheeks of a delicate female, as the man himself does from the dark American, and he again from the Ethiopian.
https://books.google.com/books?id=u9QKAA...an&f=false

Now, as for your other points, it's difficult to address them, since they are so conceptually tangled. For example, you say that human continental races only explain 3% (or so) of genetic variance in e.g., high mutation rate microsatellites and imply that this is much less than what was originally thought*. But originally, races would not have been thought about in terms of gene variance since the gene concept had to wait for Mendel -- and no one would have know what simple sequence repeats were. Originally races were thought about in terms of morphological variance (transmitted along genealogical lines). Were morphological differences, generally, perceived as being larger than they are now? Magnitudes were not quantified in the 1700s and early 1800s so we don't really know. I imagine, though, that the morphological differences that were perceived corresponded with the ones that existed. Now, as for the portion of "genetic variance" which continental divisions capture, which is an issue which you seem to be fixated on, this depends on the markers which we are interested in. Insofar as were are interested in phenotypic differences, it would seem to me that we should concern ourselves with SNP variance. As I noted in section IV, this is non-trivial. But I guess that you didn't read that section either.


But, yes, so long.

[*Another point: as discussed, genetic variance at a typical loci -- and so average genetic variance -- will be neutral and so will tend to index time of divergence between populations. It is low in humans because the divergence time is low (for major human races 5 digits). But would early races thinkers have thought it to be high (had they thought in terms of DNA)? If we mean race in the intraspecific sense -- which is what is being discussed -- no, because in this model groups were thought to have very recently diverged from a common stock and spread across the world in the imagined short time since creation (thus divergence time = a few thousand years = <<< Fst). Again, you are not thinking through what I wrote in the paper. Once you grasp that race was equated with constant varieties contra Linnean species/inconstant varieties you will see how untenable the historic (intraspecific) race = deeply divergent groups position is. The case against race is largely based on atrocious historiography.]
 Reply
One could make the same kind of statistic argument for US white-black IQ difference. The overlap is quite substantial and most variation is within populations. Does this mean that one should make a Lewontin-style argument for that division too? It works for gender/sex differences too, and pretty much any division below 1.5 d or something like that. There is a saying in philosophy for this kind of argument, "that which proves too much, proves nothing".
 Reply
(2015-Apr-19, 00:55:36)Chuck Wrote: I will make public the list of reviewer requests I have sent out. I am primarily emailing researchers who have written about the biological concept.

(1) Adam Hochman -- kindly notified me that he had other commitments (received 4/18)

(2) Michael O. Hardimon -- pending (sent 4/14)

(3) Jeremy Pierce -- No reply (sent 4/08)

(4) Michael Levin -- Accepted, then no reply after (sent 3/13)

(5) Michael Woodley -- Replied, noted he liked it, but said to publish elsewhere (sent 3/13)

(6) Neven Sesardic -- Replied, busy (3/11)


(7) Philosopher Michael James (who wrote the Stanford article on race)-- Politely declined (4/21)

(8) After initially accepting (4/20), Robin Andreasen politely reneged (4/30).

(9) I didn't direly ask Johnathan Kaplan because he told one of my reviewers (3/20) that he didn't want to engage with "racists, nor people who spout racist nonsense while hiding behind mealy-mouthed denials", that the reviewer should have fun hanging out with other racists on websites like ODP/OBG and engaging in "terribly projects", and that I was a
"intellectually dishonest racist". I presumed, based on this, that he would refuse a review request.

(10) Justine Smith -- politely declined (5/1)

(11) Joshua Glasgow -- politely declined (5/1)

(12) Kenan Malik -- politely declined (5/3)
 Reply
(2015-May-01, 03:48:15)Emil Wrote: One could make the same kind of statistic argument for US white-black IQ difference. The overlap is quite substantial and most variation is within populations. Does this mean that one should make a Lewontin-style argument for that division too? It works for gender/sex differences too, and pretty much any division below 1.5 d or something like that. There is a saying in philosophy for this kind of argument, "that which proves too much, proves nothing".


Yes, by lewontin's logic, socioeconomic racial differences ( = racism) don't exist, as they typically are around 0.5 SD (i.e., ~7% of the total variance is between ethnoracial groups).
 Reply
(2015-May-01, 05:10:05)Chuck Wrote:
(2015-May-01, 03:48:15)Emil Wrote: One could make the same kind of statistic argument for US white-black IQ difference. The overlap is quite substantial and most variation is within populations. Does this mean that one should make a Lewontin-style argument for that division too? It works for gender/sex differences too, and pretty much any division below 1.5 d or something like that. There is a saying in philosophy for this kind of argument, "that which proves too much, proves nothing".


Yes, by lewontin's logic, socioeconomic racial differences ( = racism) don't exist, as they typically are around 0.5 SD (i.e., ~7% of the total variance is between ethnoracial groups).


This is a very long paper. I think a lot of people are discouraged by its sheer size. Perhaps crowdfund it and make a payment to the reviewer conditional on receiving a review (no matter whether it's positive or negative).I could act as intermediary.
 Reply
 Previous 1 16 17 18 19 20 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)