4 ms·

I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. > "The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutiona

I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. > "The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies." The use of the term "European colonial contexts" betrays its intent immediately. I say this as a non-white person, of non-European origin. > "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations" Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Regardless of to what extent you believe the concept of 'race' explains population differences, there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology...

nextaccountic 5y ago
> I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. On what basis do you state that?
AlotOfReading 5y ago
You have a bit of a contradiction going on here. Your first sentence states that you think anthropology isn't science and your last sentence cites it as an example of a "biological scientific field". The part of forensics that deals with human bodies and especially racial classification is called forensic anthropology. Now, the relationship between academic and forensic anthropologists is pretty fraught, but not because the regular anthropologists are out there inventing new genders all the time. It's because forensic anthropology uses outdated methodologies widely considered unscientific, including racial identifications. That's why the US National Academy called for forensic science reform back in 2009 and why you still get debates like this between academics and forensic anthropologists: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513
desktopninja 5y ago
RE: ... there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology This point falls apart with "mixed-race" individuals. People have mixed since the dawn of man. The real conflict is cultural.
- ttt0 5y ago
  No, I disagree. Colors can be mixed together, so does that mean that the color blue does not exists? Can you point me where exactly blue starts and ends on a rainbow? Let's go even further, and take two mixed colors - purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow) - they're both mixed, so does that mean that there is no difference between those two? This is a fallacy. People might've mixed, but it doesn't make everyone the same. This is blatantly false. In the actual reality you just inherit some traits from one parent and some from the other. I'm not denying cultural differences obviously, but it does not contradict anything, it's just how genetics work. Race is just a superset of ethnicity, and it's more fuzzy around the edges.
  - desktopninja 5y ago
    Respectfully, mixing colors in lifeforms is not as binary as "purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow)". A black rose and a white rose does not produce a gray rose. A black cat and a white cat will not give gray cat. Two black dogs can give you a gray dog with blue eyes.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      If each color represents a particular heritable trait then it's more or less like that.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Notions of race (either at the high level of what race in general is, or at the lower level of what defines specific races) are not, even approximately, consistent across either space or time. I mean, I get that it makes building arguments much easier if you can start with your conclusion and just invent whatever premises are convenient to support it, but...

nextaccountic 5y ago

> I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. On what basis do you state that?

AlotOfReading 5y ago

You have a bit of a contradiction going on here. Your first sentence states that you think anthropology isn't science and your last sentence cites it as an example of a "biological scientific field". The part of forensics that deals with human bodies and especially racial classification is called forensic anthropology. Now, the relationship between academic and forensic anthropologists is pretty fraught, but not because the regular anthropologists are out there inventing new genders all the time. It's because forensic anthropology uses outdated methodologies widely considered unscientific, including racial identifications. That's why the US National Academy called for forensic science reform back in 2009 and why you still get debates like this between academics and forensic anthropologists: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513

desktopninja 5y ago

RE: ... there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology This point falls apart with "mixed-race" individuals. People have mixed since the dawn of man. The real conflict is cultural.

ttt0 5y ago
No, I disagree. Colors can be mixed together, so does that mean that the color blue does not exists? Can you point me where exactly blue starts and ends on a rainbow? Let's go even further, and take two mixed colors - purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow) - they're both mixed, so does that mean that there is no difference between those two? This is a fallacy. People might've mixed, but it doesn't make everyone the same. This is blatantly false. In the actual reality you just inherit some traits from one parent and some from the other. I'm not denying cultural differences obviously, but it does not contradict anything, it's just how genetics work. Race is just a superset of ethnicity, and it's more fuzzy around the edges.
- desktopninja 5y ago
  Respectfully, mixing colors in lifeforms is not as binary as "purple (blue+red) and lime (green+yellow)". A black rose and a white rose does not produce a gray rose. A black cat and a white cat will not give gray cat. Two black dogs can give you a gray dog with blue eyes.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    If each color represents a particular heritable trait then it's more or less like that.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Notions of race (either at the high level of what race in general is, or at the lower level of what defines specific races) are not, even approximately, consistent across either space or time. I mean, I get that it makes building arguments much easier if you can start with your conclusion and just invent whatever premises are convenient to support it, but...