3 ms·

> but it is not based on any formal, rigourous analytical division of intrinsic properties Actually it often is. For example one way to determine species is as

> but it is not based on any formal, rigourous analytical division of intrinsic properties Actually it often is. For example one way to determine species is as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. That's a far more rigorous and biologically based definition than race is. And taxonimists are looking at actual genes now. That is a formal, rigorous, analytical division based on intrinsic properties. So already there it is a poor comparison. Species is far more useful as an analytical tool because it is based in biology. Scientists (in biology related fields) don't use race anymore as a category because it is an outdated and failed model of ancestry differences in the human population. In fact, race often gets the biology completely wrong. Because society, not science, determines someone's race. Race is mostly useful to society and so will reflect the various motivations and ideologies of a society. People who choose to continue to use a failed scientific model as a useful analytical tool most often are pushing an ideology, and very often a racist one. The choice to use a failed model over more accurate categorization should always be suspect. So the comparison to species is a very poor one. Taxonomists are broadly not ideologically motivated in their decisions like society is. And taxonomists continually refine their categorizations based on new scientific information, including genetic information. So species categorizations continue to get more and more accurate and increasingly based in science. That's why species continues to be a useful analytical tool. It is largely based in science and society has no say. Race is the opposite.

naasking 7y ago
> For example one way to determine species is as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. [...] That is a formal, rigorous, analytical division based on intrinsic properties. No, this is not a rigourous, formal distinction because procreation is not transitive, ie. A and C could procreate, and A and B could procreate, and D could procreate successfully with C but fail to procreate successfully with B. What are the species involved in this case? "Species" is just as much a social construct as race; all distinctions made in each case are fairly arbitrary. One might have more utility, or be more precise in some equally arbitrary sense, but neither is somehow more intrinsically justified than the other. > Scientists (in biology related fields) don't use race anymore as a category because it is an outdated and failed model of ancestry differences in the human population Let's not pretend that scientists are immune from the prevailing political winds of the day. We can't possibly know whether race is a signficant factor in any given scenario until it's studied. Often it produces no meaningful results, but sometimes it does, and we won't be able to figure out why unless these studies are permitted.
- tchaffee 7y ago
  > A and C could procreate, and A and B could procreate, and D could procreate successfully with C but fail to procreate successfully with B. What are the species involved in this case? That's still rigorous and biologically based. What you've pointed out is a rare exception, where that one methodology breaks. In which case you'd have to analyze the situation in more depth. Which scientists actually do (it's not society doing it), and based on the data (not social pressures), they decide what the species are. The example I gave is one of many factors used to determine species. It's not the only factor and used in isolation, is it? So in the above case, the next step would perhaps be to look at the actual genes involved. > "Species" is just as much a social construct as race. Then please provide examples of two organisms that have very little in common genetically but are considered the same species. And where society decided what the species is. Race is exactly that: groups of individuals that have almost nothing in common except for a few genes but society has decided to group them together anyway. > Let's not pretend that scientists are immune from the prevailing political winds of the day. Please give examples of species that were categorized due to politics or ideology and where it gets the underlying biology wrong. > We can't possibly know whether race is a signficant factor until its studied. It's not studied because it is a disproven and outdated model that is useless to biologists compared to the far better tools we have today. We can look directly at people's genes. Why would you group people using far less accuracy when you want to study heritibility of traits? That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't you look at what genes people have and group them according to their genes? That's what will give meaningful results and that is why scientists choose to group based on biology rather than grouping based on what society decides. Grouping based on what society decides what race you are is close to useless for biology.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > So in the above case, the next step would perhaps be to look at the actual genes involved. And the next step after finding a correlation with race is also to figure out why it holds. > Then please provide examples of two organisms that have very little in common genetically but are considered the same species. That's irrelevant. The point is you are assigning meaning to genetic similarity, just like people concerned with studying race are assigning meaning to racial classifications (wherever they come from). You are prioritizing one set of properties over another and simply declaring that these are more important, or "real", or "natural" when this simply isn't the case. If species were truly a natural kind there would be no exceptions like the one I pointed out. If we're not studying a natural kind, then any distinctions we wish to make are arbitrary. Like I said, they may be more useful, or precise, but they're still arbitrary. > Please give examples of species that were categorized due to politics or ideology and where it gets the underlying biology wrong. So you're claiming, "an example of this specific political influence doesn't exist in the sciences, therefore political influence doesn't exist in the sciences". Is that your argument? > Why would you group people using far less accuracy when you want to study heritibility of traits? That doesn't make any sense. And yet, plenty of correlations have been found. Making sense of these is exactly why racial studies should be allowed. Finding surprising associations and figuring out why they exist is exactly what science is supposed to do.

naasking 7y ago

> For example one way to determine species is as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring. [...] That is a formal, rigorous, analytical division based on intrinsic properties. No, this is not a rigourous, formal distinction because procreation is not transitive, ie. A and C could procreate, and A and B could procreate, and D could procreate successfully with C but fail to procreate successfully with B. What are the species involved in this case? "Species" is just as much a social construct as race; all distinctions made in each case are fairly arbitrary. One might have more utility, or be more precise in some equally arbitrary sense, but neither is somehow more intrinsically justified than the other. > Scientists (in biology related fields) don't use race anymore as a category because it is an outdated and failed model of ancestry differences in the human population Let's not pretend that scientists are immune from the prevailing political winds of the day. We can't possibly know whether race is a signficant factor in any given scenario until it's studied. Often it produces no meaningful results, but sometimes it does, and we won't be able to figure out why unless these studies are permitted.

tchaffee 7y ago
> A and C could procreate, and A and B could procreate, and D could procreate successfully with C but fail to procreate successfully with B. What are the species involved in this case? That's still rigorous and biologically based. What you've pointed out is a rare exception, where that one methodology breaks. In which case you'd have to analyze the situation in more depth. Which scientists actually do (it's not society doing it), and based on the data (not social pressures), they decide what the species are. The example I gave is one of many factors used to determine species. It's not the only factor and used in isolation, is it? So in the above case, the next step would perhaps be to look at the actual genes involved. > "Species" is just as much a social construct as race. Then please provide examples of two organisms that have very little in common genetically but are considered the same species. And where society decided what the species is. Race is exactly that: groups of individuals that have almost nothing in common except for a few genes but society has decided to group them together anyway. > Let's not pretend that scientists are immune from the prevailing political winds of the day. Please give examples of species that were categorized due to politics or ideology and where it gets the underlying biology wrong. > We can't possibly know whether race is a signficant factor until its studied. It's not studied because it is a disproven and outdated model that is useless to biologists compared to the far better tools we have today. We can look directly at people's genes. Why would you group people using far less accuracy when you want to study heritibility of traits? That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't you look at what genes people have and group them according to their genes? That's what will give meaningful results and that is why scientists choose to group based on biology rather than grouping based on what society decides. Grouping based on what society decides what race you are is close to useless for biology.
- naasking 7y ago
  > So in the above case, the next step would perhaps be to look at the actual genes involved. And the next step after finding a correlation with race is also to figure out why it holds. > Then please provide examples of two organisms that have very little in common genetically but are considered the same species. That's irrelevant. The point is you are assigning meaning to genetic similarity, just like people concerned with studying race are assigning meaning to racial classifications (wherever they come from). You are prioritizing one set of properties over another and simply declaring that these are more important, or "real", or "natural" when this simply isn't the case. If species were truly a natural kind there would be no exceptions like the one I pointed out. If we're not studying a natural kind, then any distinctions we wish to make are arbitrary. Like I said, they may be more useful, or precise, but they're still arbitrary. > Please give examples of species that were categorized due to politics or ideology and where it gets the underlying biology wrong. So you're claiming, "an example of this specific political influence doesn't exist in the sciences, therefore political influence doesn't exist in the sciences". Is that your argument? > Why would you group people using far less accuracy when you want to study heritibility of traits? That doesn't make any sense. And yet, plenty of correlations have been found. Making sense of these is exactly why racial studies should be allowed. Finding surprising associations and figuring out why they exist is exactly what science is supposed to do.