4 ms·

>which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. None, because you cannot create a grouping without imposing certain parameters which are non-emp

>which genetic groups are correct to create distinctions from. None, because you cannot create a grouping without imposing certain parameters which are non-empirical in nature. Genetic science =! race science. Race as a concept is almost entirely mediated by social concerns and abstractions from concrete reality.

rosmax_1337 2y ago
You can create groupings in nature. Biologists do it all the time for all animals. The groupings are by some measure arbitrary, yes, unless you mean to suggest that for example crows are in the same grouping as seagulls, and that even these groupings are invalid?
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  No, in fact I'm not. But nobody is going to go around saying that a crow is a seagull, you know it when you see it. Its because we ourselves are not seagulls or crows. We are not dogs, we are not animals, except in one specific way. And since you, yes you yourself, are part of the thing you are commenting on (race), there is no way to "purify" your assessment of the thing since your own personal history, which you cannot even be fully aware of, factors into your sectioning of the world.
  - rosmax_1337 2y ago
    So we are unable to judge, and therefore the null hypothesis must be that humans are genetically similar enough that trait variation is explained by external factors? I think we can judge, and also that the null hypothesis should be that humans are evolutionary creatures like all other creatures on the planet, with groupings exhibiting different traits based on the genetic makeup.
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      No, but we cannot make any pure empirical judgements, just ones that we know are inflected by our particular social histories. Of course different humans have different traits, but IQ is not a measure of individual traits, its a mass measurement that correlates far more strongly with social factors such as nutrition and education than genetic heritage, which is what the article is saying
      - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
        So do you believe that science as a whole is impossible because it is impossible for us to be truly logical and empirical on every matter?
        DiscourseFan 2y ago
        Logical =! Empirical (there are many books on philosophy you could read on this subject, probably all of them.) Science is the study of things that aren't logical. Concepts don't have anything to do with natural systems, they are patterns of thinking fixed into definite shapes to be applied to the natural world. It is precisely what we don't know, and what we don't yet know that we don't know, that scientific practice helps us discover. If you trusted in "logic" all the time you'd just get endless mathematical formulas that look cool and feel nice, but don't have anything to do with the universe more than a cat has to do with a ball of yarn that it's playing with. It is always when we discover things that break logic, that real scientific progress is made, not when we mindlessly follow what is "logical."

rosmax_1337 2y ago

You can create groupings in nature. Biologists do it all the time for all animals. The groupings are by some measure arbitrary, yes, unless you mean to suggest that for example crows are in the same grouping as seagulls, and that even these groupings are invalid?

DiscourseFan 2y ago
No, in fact I'm not. But nobody is going to go around saying that a crow is a seagull, you know it when you see it. Its because we ourselves are not seagulls or crows. We are not dogs, we are not animals, except in one specific way. And since you, yes you yourself, are part of the thing you are commenting on (race), there is no way to "purify" your assessment of the thing since your own personal history, which you cannot even be fully aware of, factors into your sectioning of the world.
- rosmax_1337 2y ago
  So we are unable to judge, and therefore the null hypothesis must be that humans are genetically similar enough that trait variation is explained by external factors? I think we can judge, and also that the null hypothesis should be that humans are evolutionary creatures like all other creatures on the planet, with groupings exhibiting different traits based on the genetic makeup.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    No, but we cannot make any pure empirical judgements, just ones that we know are inflected by our particular social histories. Of course different humans have different traits, but IQ is not a measure of individual traits, its a mass measurement that correlates far more strongly with social factors such as nutrition and education than genetic heritage, which is what the article is saying
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      So do you believe that science as a whole is impossible because it is impossible for us to be truly logical and empirical on every matter?
      - DiscourseFan 2y ago
        Logical =! Empirical (there are many books on philosophy you could read on this subject, probably all of them.) Science is the study of things that aren't logical. Concepts don't have anything to do with natural systems, they are patterns of thinking fixed into definite shapes to be applied to the natural world. It is precisely what we don't know, and what we don't yet know that we don't know, that scientific practice helps us discover. If you trusted in "logic" all the time you'd just get endless mathematical formulas that look cool and feel nice, but don't have anything to do with the universe more than a cat has to do with a ball of yarn that it's playing with. It is always when we discover things that break logic, that real scientific progress is made, not when we mindlessly follow what is "logical."