By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 23 February 2018
Edit Thread
o_O.Q said:
sundin13 said:

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?

1) "Race (in the human context) has always been an assumption that the underlying genetics would mirror certain phenotypic patterns"

the phenotype is the physical expression of your genetics

so by definition there is a connection, it sounds like you are saying that there is no connection here

 

2) " The issue has nothing to do with political correctness, it is simply science working correctly"

the fact that you are denying that the differences i can clearly identify between black people and asian people is why i'm saying this is political correctness

to say that such differences are not biological but socially constructed is to be frank insane

to quote pi guy 

"Modern scholarship views racial categories as socially constructed"


3) "and those outside of said science throwing up their hands because they don't want their worldview disrupted. "

how would anything you posted disrupt my worldview? well despite my assumption on the state of the field of biology?

you haven't posted anything that shows that the characteristics we use to identify different human races are not biological in nature which is the crux of this issue

if you could prove that the differences are really not biological but social then yes that would be earth shattering

 

4) "To conclude, I will first ask, why would it be harmful to move away from skin color based classification systems?"

you have to rather naive to think that simply because you discard a word that people won't continue to behave in accordance with what they see

1) If I've explained it once, I've explained it 100 times. I am not saying that there is no connection, but instead, that phenotypic variation does not necessarily speak to similar variation in genes not controlling for that small subset of characteristics. 

2/3) No, I think that is just you for some reason refusing to understand a point that I've explained 100 times. I have never claimed that skin color is not a genetic trait, only that such small genetic variation is not sufficient to separate the species into distinct races. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. 

4) That is pretty much by definition, a non-argument, which does not address my question.