From: Timothy Bates (tbates@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Date: Tue Nov 17 1998 - 21:04:24 MST
BilLee Miller says:
> I've explained it before. I'll explain it again. There is
>absolutely no biological basis for the conceptual distinction of race.
That is not an explanation: it is a claim.
>We're just as likely to be more genetically similar to a person of a
>different "race" as we are to a member of the same "race."
That is irrelevant to the claim that races are as meaningful a grouping
of humans as they are of other species.
I could use the same logic to say that there is no such thing as birth
order by noting that I am as likely to have a personality more similar to
someone of another birth order as I am to someone who shares my birth
order. The critical question is not do the distirbutions overlap at all,
but does aggregating across (putative) members leave reliable differences
and secondarily, can these differences be attributed to gene frequencies
within the mating population? If there are no differences, they will
disappear in the aggregation. If there are, they will shine forth. The
fact is that are reliable aggregate differences which have meaningful
social outcomes.
>Literally a
>racist is a person who believes in the existence.
Oh i see: you need no proof that what someone might say is wrong: that
they say it is proof that it is wrong: how handy for you.
This is structurally identical to Dworkin's claim that women have no need
to prove that pornography is harmful or even to define pornography.
Pornography is whatever a powerless person says it is, no one can
meaningfully dispute this, and the mere claim that it is pornographic is
proof that it is harmful.
This is mind-rotting nonsense.
> I think Richard Dawkins
>provided a strong argument group selection in _The Selfish Gene_ for most
>of us to reason that any major distinctions into massive human groups
>are probably memetic rather genetic.
Umm. I guess it is just an editing slip up, but Dawkins is virulently
opposed to group selection. Anyhow, could you supply a citation from "the
selfish gene" to the effect that it has been empirically demonstrated
that there are not now, and never have been, any human groups
distinguished by statistically significant differences in gene frequency?
To my mind, race is like the use of the term type in the Myers Briggs
personality scale: it would only be appropriate if significant
bi-modality or higher order multi modal peaks were found in the gene
frequencies when mapped out against dimensions known to underlie
speciation: dimensions such as geographical location. In the case of
personality, type claims are not supported by the evidence. It si a
similar matter of empirical investigation whether this is the case for
race.
a. All members of a species have the same gene loci.
b. Individuals have one and only one allele at each locus on each strand
of DNA.
c. If those gene frequencies were randomly distributed geographically and
on all other dimensions affecting mate choice, then there could be no
justification for the term race.
If, however, we find that certain alleles differ significantly in
frequency between groups distrubuted on these dimensions which underlie
speication, then the term race has utility (meaning):it describes this
inhomogeneity in gene frequency.
It is a scientific question: either gene frequencies are distributed
non-normally, or they are not. Either groups of hominids were
reproductively (relatively) isolated for considerable periods of time or
they were not. If they were, racial differences will evolve. They must
because it is exactly these differences which drive speciation and we
have species. Or don't you believe in species either?
tim
____________________
Dr. Hans Moravec, principal research scientist at the Robotics Institute
at Carnegie Mellon, recently wrote a business prospectus outlining the
development of "autonomous free-ranging utility robots for the mass
market before 2005.
"Until recently, Dr. Moravec said, autonomous robots -- those capable of
operating without direct human control -- had the functional intelligence
of insects. "Today the actual level of intelligence of computers is just
starting to touch the lower vertebrate levels," he said. "As soon as
2010, we could have general-purpose robots comparable in intelligence to
lizards. Then there could be mouselike intelligence, with learning and
adaptation, by 2020, and monkeylike intelligence by 2030." At that stage,
Dr. Moravec said, "you could be talking to the household robot and you
would think that it is conscious." "By 2040, the fourth-generation
household robot could add a layer of reasoning and become humanlike, Dr.
Moravec said.
"After that, we humans are obsolete," he said with a chuckle.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:47 MST