3 ms·
So different people look different. Why is that an important principle of biology that needs to be developed in a textbook? How does it help us to understand an
by leephillips 5y ago
So different people look different. Why is that an important principle of biology that needs to be developed in a textbook? How does it help us to understand anything?
And I persist: if you can’t measure it, and tell me what someone’s “race” is in a way that biologists in general would agree with, the concept is too wobbly to be of any scientific interest. Finding definitions merely shows that the word exists. It doesn’t support the idea that it’s a meaningful or useful categorization.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago> So different people look different. Why is that an important principle of biology that needs to be developed in a textbook? How does it help us to understand anything? Race strongly correlates with other things; for instance, per https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm "White (Non-Hispanic)" men are most at risk of heart disease, and "American Indian or Alaska Native" are winning by several percentage points. That is deeply of scientific interest.
- leephillips 5y agoIn order to apply these supposed correlations, we would need to be able to determine the patient’s race. How do we do that? (It seems to me that there is at least a hint of tautology in your comment. How can we talk about these correlations with race unless we're assuming that racial categorizations are meaningful in the first place?)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y agoBecause, and I do not think I can stress that enough, science is not a religion. It is not a movement or a cause. And I am concerned that you are worried more about the 'good' derived from uhomitting a bad word might cause than about exploring and describing reality for what it is.