3 ms·

You're really referring to genetic ancestry, which is regularly used in biology without any issue. The term "race" is really not used anymore, except in a socia

You're really referring to genetic ancestry, which is regularly used in biology without any issue. The term "race" is really not used anymore, except in a social/historical/statistical (population) context for humans. It's only informally used in human biology. > Because, and I don't think that is questioned, race as a biological concept exists This is questioned constantly, and is far from the standard or consensus opinion for human biology. In reality, most scientists and biologists don't use the term "race" often or at all precisely because of it's historical connotations and social uses. Removing the term "race" from a science textbook does not change anything really, beside clarify that race in the context of racial essentialism in biology is a useless concept. Understanding how the concept of race was used to abuse science, and in turn abuse large swathes of the population, is more important, and likely has a role in learning about the ethics and uses of biology.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Hmm. I like the explanation and I appreciate some of the concern. I would personally argue its absence says more than its presence given race is used in other contexts you listed. You simply can't get away from it when discussing demographics, so I question a little your statement that the term is not used in biology or other sciences. Could you share an example of a paper that follows that 'no race' ( "at all" ) approach? I may very well be wrong. I am pretty ancient. << This is questioned constantly, and is far from the standard or consensus opinion for human biology. You clearly are more immersed in it than me. Could you elaborate a little bit and link to two recent opposing papers? Sorry for all the questions. I am genuinely curious now.
- mabub24 5y ago
  To be clear, the term is used and has been used. But the idea that it's a concept that everyone agrees on, or that everyone agrees must be used, is not at all true. The debate is alive and well in philosophy and in the sciences. Personally, I don't really see any use for the term in science, beyond referring to a social/informally named group. For a philosophical discussion see a good summary here: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/what-is-race-four-philosophical-views/ https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/what-is-race-four-philosophical-... And for a very extensive summary of relevant scientific and genetic findings, see the wikipedia page on Race as a system of human categorization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Biology,_anatomy,_and_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Bi... The key quote from that article is: > Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21] You can clearly see a number of competing views, including constructivist, essentialist, and anti-essentialist, the idea that the concept of race is irrelevant to the study of biology.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Thank you. This was genuinely an interesting read to me.
WindyLakeReturn 5y ago
Race is better replaced by populations. Populations are groups of people who grew up in a region back when travel between regions was restricted enough that genetic differences appears. As our world become more connected, populations were grouped based on similar phenotype (not similar genotype) into races. Races do exist in that they are phenotypically similar groupings of population, but they have little value in comparison to populations at the biology level. Sociology level race has more importance because of how society reacted once those races were created (which also means it has an importance in the fields dealing with the history of science). And as the world becomes more globalized, the effects of populations decrease. It isn't gone and has a long way to go before it is gone, but as long as the world stays globalized it will happen. Far into the future, assume humanity achieves long distance space travel, it will likely result in new populations emerging and potentially even different species evolving. But that's so far away that it is best left to science fiction.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

Hmm. I like the explanation and I appreciate some of the concern. I would personally argue its absence says more than its presence given race is used in other contexts you listed. You simply can't get away from it when discussing demographics, so I question a little your statement that the term is not used in biology or other sciences. Could you share an example of a paper that follows that 'no race' ( "at all" ) approach? I may very well be wrong. I am pretty ancient. << This is questioned constantly, and is far from the standard or consensus opinion for human biology. You clearly are more immersed in it than me. Could you elaborate a little bit and link to two recent opposing papers? Sorry for all the questions. I am genuinely curious now.

mabub24 5y ago
To be clear, the term is used and has been used. But the idea that it's a concept that everyone agrees on, or that everyone agrees must be used, is not at all true. The debate is alive and well in philosophy and in the sciences. Personally, I don't really see any use for the term in science, beyond referring to a social/informally named group. For a philosophical discussion see a good summary here: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/what-is-race-four-philosophical-views/ https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/what-is-race-four-philosophical-... And for a very extensive summary of relevant scientific and genetic findings, see the wikipedia page on Race as a system of human categorization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Biology,_anatomy,_and_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Bi... The key quote from that article is: > Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21] You can clearly see a number of competing views, including constructivist, essentialist, and anti-essentialist, the idea that the concept of race is irrelevant to the study of biology.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Thank you. This was genuinely an interesting read to me.

WindyLakeReturn 5y ago

Race is better replaced by populations. Populations are groups of people who grew up in a region back when travel between regions was restricted enough that genetic differences appears. As our world become more connected, populations were grouped based on similar phenotype (not similar genotype) into races. Races do exist in that they are phenotypically similar groupings of population, but they have little value in comparison to populations at the biology level. Sociology level race has more importance because of how society reacted once those races were created (which also means it has an importance in the fields dealing with the history of science). And as the world becomes more globalized, the effects of populations decrease. It isn't gone and has a long way to go before it is gone, but as long as the world stays globalized it will happen. Far into the future, assume humanity achieves long distance space travel, it will likely result in new populations emerging and potentially even different species evolving. But that's so far away that it is best left to science fiction.