From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 07:21:23 MDT
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 cryofan@mylinuxisp.com, commenting on my
lengthy tirade about "race" wrote:
> What terms do you use for people who attack straw men in argumentation?
> :-)
"Straw man", *meeee* propose a straw man. Ok, its pistols at dawn at 20
paces...
> Your message title says that "race is an invalid concept". But then you just
> discuss one *aspect* of race--skin color.
>
> What about all the other aspects of race, such as the well documented
> differences in maturation rates, testosterone levels, etc etc etc...
>
> Are those invalid as well?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My reason for pointing out all of the genes
involved in "simple" traits like skin and hair color was to try and
emphasize how taking a set of observable traits and using them to
specify a "race" is a gross oversimplification.
For example, as I understand it, The Bell Curve, has a brief discussion
of the intelligenced differences between two of the four races (that
are generally scientifically agreed upon). However, many forms in the
U.S. (census, college application, etc.) now list many more than "four"
races. One further has the problem of interbreeding between
the races -- there may be very few racially "pure" individuals
in the U.S., perhaps even North and South America. How can one draw
conclusions from tests that may include people that are 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,
etc. some other "race"?
> Besides, I fail to see how enumeration of the number of genes attributable to
> a particular physical aspect of an organism provides any insight as to how
> important that particular physical aspect is with repect to behavior of the
> organism.
As Rafal pointed out, I was trying to shift the focus from racial traits
anyone can observe (skin, eye, hair color) that may have very little
direct connection to other traits (intelligence, musical or physical
abilities, etc.) to the physical basis for the traits that we cannot
observe (genes). It is only by determining whether the genes that cause
those traits are linked and segregate together can we state that trait A
and trait B are found together in the same individual some significant
fraction of the time.
There are traits that are determined by single genes (e.g. many of
the ~8000 known genetic diseases). But there are other traits
that involve many genes (racial characteristics, intelligence,
longevity, many behaviors, etc.). The more genes that are involved
in trait A the less likely it is that trait A and trait B will
generally be found together, particularly if trait B also involves
a large number of genes.
This was an attempt to move the discussion from "correlative evidence",
which while "scientific" is a very deep swamp, to "causative evidence"
which has greater merit from a scientific standpoint.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:21 MST