we can't define "night" either.
I’m not sure that’s accurate.
National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
11–20 of 100 posts
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#12I'm not sure if should post my comment or call the cops on myself.
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#13Lots of categories have fuzzy edges. It doesn’t mean they’re not useful or that they don’t exist.
I defy you to describe race in certain terms.
What you mean by "certain terms"? The OP said plenty of definitions are fuzzy. "Species" doesn't even have a rigourous definition when it comes down to it. Pretty much all taxonomies beyond the Standard Model of particle physics are fictions. In science, the only thing that matters is whether a category is useful for analytical purposes.
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#14we can't define "night" either.
Where does a color stop being yellow and start being green? This is the classic lumping and splitting debate. It's obvious that the mere existence of multuple options for lumping and splitting doesn't imply there are no meaningful distinctions to be made.
I dislike this obvious and offensive dishonesty. We can define race quite easily: A race is a largely endogamous extended family group. But but but that means you could call Yoruba people a race! Well sure, you can. Just like we can call the English or even the Cornish a race. When the Angle race and the Saxon race became exogamous with respect to each other, their distinction faded and a new Anglo-Saxon race came to be. We can also talk about a British race, by descent from William the Conqueror. I believe the Chinese have a notion of five Chinese races. In fact, the notion of lumping races as continental scale groups is an American innovation that is of dubious anthropological value. Point being that you can lump up to all humans being a single race going back to the first humans or split down to the nuclear family[1]. It's clear to me that both of those extremes aren't very interesting, but they are valid! As for useful places to lump and split, genetic screening is an obvious one. As an example, choosing to split intelligently will allow a health service to save money by avoiding unnecessarily testing for sickle cell disease.
It follows that for two typical individuals of the same race, you have to go less far up their family tree to find a common ancestor than you would for two typical individuals of different races. This effect is considerably more pronounced if you restrict it to common ancestors from before 1492. Of course 1492 isn't the only date where this effect is seen. For just one example, most Britons have a common ancestor from slightly after 1066.
[1] Nuclear meaning no longer able to be split (physicists weakened that metaphor a bit though!).
Edit: The redefinition goes the other way, as can be seen from public domain sources like Webster's where the first sense of race is "The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed."
I will happily agree that the contemporary lowbrow usage of race to mean black people or white people, and I dunno maybe let's lump everyone else together as asian except some white or black people are hispanic instead doesn't even rise to the level of being childishly stupid.
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#15“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…
What would you be using ethnicity for? I don't think they're making a case for some sort of trans-racial ethnic self-identification being used in science as a replacement for race.
I think you substitute race with precision. If a cluster of different genes or characteristics are commonly found together, say which ones you're talking about, how often they're found together (as opposed to apart), and why you think that's relevant. Talking about race is honestly often ultimately handwaving in the vague direction of 19th century biblical scholars.
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#16“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…
Ethnicity is just one of many factors, and is related to your culture, which is related to how you live your life, which can definitely be a factor. But yes, if your "ethnic" groups look like [1], ethnicity is really just another word for race,
because you are not asked the bullet points, which certainly are ethnic (English vs. African, for example), but the headers (White vs. Black).
[1] https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/style-gui...
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#17“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…
To be fair, there is a clear definition of ethnicity as "the quality or fact of belonging to a population group or subgroup made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent".
So while an individual cannot decide who they descended from, they can choose whether or not to accept a set of cultural norms. People routinely change religions, learn other languages, or follow other traditions outside the ethnic cultural norms they were born into.
The TFA states that ethnicity is only one of many potential "population descriptors" and recommends that researchers "use multiple descriptors rather than a single, overly broad category".
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I defy you to describe race in certain terms.
What you mean by "certain terms"? The OP said plenty of definitions are fuzzy. "Species" doesn't even have a rigourous definition when it comes down to it. Pretty much all taxonomies beyond the Standard Model of particle physics are fictions. In science, the only thing that matters is whether a category is useful for analytical purposes.
“Race” is significantly more fuzzy than “species”.
There are edge cases where people will argue where to draw lines between species. However, it’s profoundly challenging to draw lines between “races” in the first place.
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#19Lots of categories have fuzzy edges. It doesn’t mean they’re not useful or that they don’t exist.
[deleted]
Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science
#20“In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups. Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity. The structure of g…
Further down in the article, the answer is given. They are recommending that journals, funding bodies, etc, start to require scientists to define their chosen categories and justify the usage.