Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#21

Post by tristor »

> Rather, human genetic variation is the result of many forces—historical, social, biological—and no single variable fully represents this complexity.

Would it not be correct to state that "race" is a social construction intended as a stand-in to identify sets of interconnected factors which impact a particular population, such as historical, social, and biological?

Is the issue that the word "race" has too much baggage, or that the very concept of "race" isn't useful? It sounds to me, based on the argument in the article, that the concept has some usefulness, even if it has been misused in such ways to have significant baggage. It is necessarily less precise than defining each variable independently in a matrix.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#24

Post by tomp »

drewcon wrote: post #10
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #9

Lots 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.

try googling " person face" where is "white", "asian" or "black" and you get pretty representative results of what people mean by "race".

(same if you do "dog breed" for example)

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#25

Post by pessimizer »

naasking wrote: post #13
drewcon wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

If a thing can't be defined either specifically or usefully, maybe it should stay in the humanities rather than invade science?

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#28

Post by Overtonwindow »

Race is in the eye of the viewer. You can choose your race, but it has no value unless other people recognize it. Ultimately, though, race is defined by skin color, which is a quick way to identify people. This article seems to be creating an argument, where one was never needed.

Sometimes society does things to help organize itself.

Re: National Academies: We can’t define “race,” so stop using it in science

#29

Post by Joker_vD »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #6

“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…

This whole line of reasoning can also be used to argue that there is no such thing as culture: neither "French culture", or "English culture", or "New York culture", or "Florida culture", etc. exist.

Also, population mixing and movements across time doesn't preclude the existence of more or less distinguishable groups inside the said population.

Post reply on HN