Quite frankly, I do not want to see you as an academic equal when the training involved between the two studies is not even remotely comparable at the same level of rigor because we have to endure far more ordeals to truly help and make a real impact on modern civilization ...
I am not asking you to see me as an 'academic equal' -- whatever that means. It is true that political theory, including international relations as a whole, is not a science. This is basic stuff, really. Science proceeds to operate through observation, testable experimentation, proof by repetition, and independent verification of findings. The arts, whether that is philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, economics, or literary critique, is by definition not a science. One cannot 'prove' Plato, or Marx, or Nietzsche. You can only contemplate their views, weigh them up, and produce a substantive but ultimately subjective perspective of the topic/concept/idea you are studying.
That does not however mean that to study politics is in its entirety an 'art' in the strict sense. Studying politics and IR is by nature the study of an amalgamation of other arts, which is why a student of politics must be well versed in philosophy, as well as in sociology, economics, and even history. My second bachelor's degree was actually in international history, rather than politics. History is an entirely different beast. It is not a science, either, but it does entail weighing up proofs, information, and points-of-view in order to distill the truth of an event. You cannot 'argue' that colonialism didn't happen. What you can do is demonstrate why narratives that portray it as a negative event were incorrect, based on other historical data and information.
Do you endure far more ordeals? Quite possibly. Since my first bachelor's was in computer games development, I know full well that studying a science topic requires a far more rigorous mode of study, far more learning of formulae, calculus, and so forth. My experience studying in the field of computing gave me both an appreciation of scientific study, and was at the same time a process that resulted in me accepting that I needed to study something else, as I wouldn't have been a good game developer. That does not in any way however mean that studying politics all the way to doctorate level was a trivial or routine task. I assure you that it did not involve just coming up with stuff. I had to study everything from Marxist economics, to Criminal and International Law, including arduous and nebulous topics such as the British Politcal System, and the EU, its laws and its complex institutions. If your point is to merely underestimate then I will let others judge as to who between the two of us knows better what things they are talking about.
You're teaching inconsistency, FYI so please do explain how that's supposed to help anyone or any of your students ? (just about any noobie can start picking up political concepts and make up interpretations about them like you can)
I am teaching inconsistency? What does that even mean? I know this is your modus operanti, to try to get people so annoyed that they lose an argument by virtue of losing their ****, but I do not fall for this stuff. We do not start picking up political concepts and make-up interpretations on the go. That is not what political theory, or studying International Relations is about. To say this only reveals your own ignorance of the vast difference between the layman's use of political concepts and their implementation in an academic context. Furthermore, I do not merely come up with ideas from my own head. I wish I had thought of these ideas. On the contrary, I can provide a citation for everything I am saying here. This is stuff I learned by explicitly studying, for example, Nationalism; Balkan History; and Colonial History respectively.
Since this has become a ridiculous litany of assaults and ad hominems, I am happy to give you my name and full academic profile so you can judge for yourself, on the proviso that you do the same. As I said earlier, I am happy to allow others to pass on judgment as to whether I am making things up here, or not.
I could elaborate on your biological understanding that you are lacking but since it's dragged out long enough along with the fact that you call others on here a "lost cause", I see no reason to since you seem very obstinate on trying to +1 others around here in this thread to enforce a confirmation bias so I'm going to gladly fuck right off when conduct of your caliber is downright repulsive ... (word of advice, don't expect to be treated with intellect in discussions if you don't treat others with intellect)
No you couldn't. There is no rigorous scientific study of race and genetics that demonstrates a close link. For example, studies comparing the genomes of Bosnian Muslims, versus Bosnian Serbs (Christians), showed several consistencies across chromosome haplogroups (43.5% and 30.9%, respectively), which in the authors' words "shows that different ethnic groups in Bosnia [...] share a large subset of their paternal lineages" (1), despite these groups believing they have different ethnicity. The whole concept of 'race' is tenuous and political in itself (2). The use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research has been described as "problematic at best, and harmful at worst" -- not by political theorists but by geneticists (3). Of course, I am not trying to simplify a vastly complex topic here, nor to assert that there is no scientific research into how aspects of the concept of 'race' could indeed turn out to reflect actual different genetic characteristics between populations (4). Such research, like Reich's (professor of genetics at Harvard) article below, does exist but even there the author is careful to avoid completely denying the socially constructed aspects of the concept of race. This does not mean that there are no genomic differences between a group of people living in Mozambique and a group of people living in Iceland, but it does mean that at the individual level most of us have probably very little idea of 'where we come from', genetically speaking. 'Race' as we commonly understand it is mostly wishful-thinking. Dr Foeman, professor of intercultural communication, has focused her research on individuals whose sense of 'race' differs from what genetic studies about them reveal (5). She has come across 'biracial' people who were entirely of European descent. Christians of Jewish descent. I really could go on and on, but this is neither my field of study, nor do I think it is productive to do so. You, and anyone else interested, can have a look at the resources below. The National Geographic article, in particular, is the most useful for this discussion. But for a counter-point, I'd take a look at Reich's position as well.
I am not pressing the +1 to "enforce a confirmation bias". The button is there. I don't know what makes you so sensitive about this, but let me clear this up for you, once and for all:
I don't seek your validation, nor do I want you to treat me as an intellectual equal. Nothing about this conversation is about validation for me. This is a forum, with a topic, and we are discussants. This is the extent and context of this debate. My attitude is what it is, and if and when it gets too offensive or aggressive I know when to back down and apologize. This, however, has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply making my points and defending them. This is entirely within the intended function and behaviour of a forum. If you can provide an actual substantiation of your positions other than ad hominems, go ahead. That is all I expect from you. Whether you, or I, or anyone else is an intellectual equal or not is really not the point of this conversation. The point is BREXIT and I will stand by my opinion that those who voted to leave the EU based on nationalist and racist propaganda have no idea what they are doing, or what they even believe in (6). By that, I literally mean that they have no knowledge of history, or politics. There you go. Enjoy.
(1) Kovacevics et al (2014) "Standing at the Gateway to Europe - The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and Haploid Markers", PLoS ONE 9:8.
(2) Collins (2004) "What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era", Nature Genetics, 36, pp. 13-15.
(3) Yudell et al (2016) "Taking race out of human genetics", Science, 351: 6273, pp. 564-565.
(4) Reich (2018) "How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'", The New York Times, 23 March 2018, URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
(5) Kolbert (2018) "There is no Scientific Basis for Race - It's a Made-Up Label", National Geographic, April 2018, URL: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
(6) To those few who actually voted based on another basis, I am truly sorry that your voice and preference has been drowned. I am sure you did not intend or wish for BREXIT to become, the banner flag and the resurgence of, opaque racism in Britain. I was one of those who, in the Greek referendum some years ago, supported the 'NO' vote against the EU.
P.S.: If anyone does not have access to these academic journals, I can provide PDFs to read by request.
Last edited by Helloplite - on 02 May 2018
