3 ms·
It's true that "race" is not used with the relative level of consistency and precision as other terms are, like "species", but it's important to remember that a
by jshevek 7y ago
It's true that "race" is not used with the relative level of consistency and precision as other terms are, like "species", but it's important to remember that all of these categorisations have edge cases and grey areas. Saying that it is "arbitrary" is not helpful here, and can imply that it is "wholly arbitrary" which is wrong.
- throwaway65512 7y agoThat's a false equivalence. Some terms are well-defined in phylogeny, and even among the murkier concepts (like species) almost all of them are clearer than race which basically covers a hodge-podge of sometimes contradictory concepts no one ever seems to agree on.
- jshevek 7y agoSaying that it is "arbitrary" is not helpful here, and can imply that it is "wholly arbitrary" which is wrong.
- throwaway65512 7y agoIt is arbitrary enough as to be utterly irrelevant in modern genomics. Some people cling to it, usually doctors who haven't gotten the memo, old school taxonomists who don't want to let go of their traditional systems, and of course Pioneer Fund recipients. But popgen/phylogeny researchers avoid using it because of how little information it conveys due to its being so poorly defined.