| o_O.Q said: nothing has changed about the definition of race, all that has changed is that the term race is being removed from the field of biology its meaning is the same as it always has been with regards to identifying people with different physical characteristics
to put a finer point on this, the fact that the field of biology is phasing out the term race does not mean, for example, that we lose the ability to differentiate between a black and a white man correct? and furthermore it does not mean that when people make such distinctions that its not grounded in biology, since we make such distinctions in accordance with the expression of genetic traits |
That isn't really true. Race (in the human context) has always been an assumption that the underlying genetics would mirror certain phenotypic patterns. As our knowledge of genetics has grown, we have learned that this assumption was false, and as such, the scientific community has taken some steps forwards in the way we speak about race. Unfortunately, such concepts have become reified through use, which makes correcting errors in a broad context difficult.
This is evidenced by the fact that the field of biology is not "phasing out the term race". The term still applies within other species, where genetics indicate races do exist. However, it is attempting to correct the record on the use of the term in relation to humans, where such a term is inaccurate.
That is how science works. New knowledge replaces old assumptions and we move forwards to assimilate this new knowledge into the existing knowledge base, and reformulating hypothesis based on these changes. The issue has nothing to do with political correctness, it is simply science working correctly, and those outside of said science throwing up their hands because they don't want their worldview disrupted.
To conclude, I will first ask, why would it be harmful to move away from skin color based classification systems?
