But even within strain there is normal distribution around the mean. prediction and probability are statistical pehnomena and do not mean this is the way it is 100% of the time,
but to say there is no scientific evidence as mentioned above is absurd.
and what you are stating are all pieces of the same puzzle.
environment can force a specific trait to be more survivable. thus altering the genome. whether it is natural selction or selective breeding. it can end in the same way. A genetically discernable trait, group of traits or genotypic evidence for an expressed phenotype.
but then what we clasically define as race is not completely relevant, as it does subcategorize the species completely, or account for all the genetic variability.
Not to the extent of scientific fact. You cannot give me a sequence of DNA that specifies an exact ethnicity and isn’t possible in other ethnicities. And even if there were, this misses the fact that people of mixed ethnicity still blur the lines.
And definitely no assessment of life situations ever includes an investigation into the genetic makeup of an individual.
Besides you have been reduced to only talking about strictly ancestry at this point and NOT the physical or physiological traits we associate with race.[/quote]
No but with a given probability predict race from the a given DNA sequence. it is actually being used in forensics now to help predict skin color and eye olor of unknow perps who leave dna at a crime scene.
you are right in the sense of more a metling pot since we can travel globally fairly easy, but science of behavior and phenotype is driven by protein pathways of the the genome. It is all there.
[/quote]
“race from the a given DNA sequence” does not equal “skin color and eye [c]olor”
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But even within strain there is normal distribution around the mean. prediction and probability are statistical pehnomena and do not mean this is the way it is 100% of the time,
but to say there is no scientific evidence as mentioned above is absurd.
and what you are stating are all pieces of the same puzzle.
environment can force a specific trait to be more survivable. thus altering the genome. whether it is natural selction or selective breeding. it can end in the same way. A genetically discernable trait, group of traits or genotypic evidence for an expressed phenotype.
but then what we clasically define as race is not completely relevant, as it does subcategorize the species completely, or account for all the genetic variability.
sorry for the looping string of thought[/quote]
I’ve always figured that there must be a reason the probability of a blonde/blue child being born in the remote bushmen tribe is negligibly small. Didn’t know there was a known genetic backing for this as I keep hearing that all humans share the same genome(with the exception of mutations of course).
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But even within strain there is normal distribution around the mean. prediction and probability are statistical pehnomena and do not mean this is the way it is 100% of the time,
[/quote]
This is exactly what I’m getting at.
Let me see if I can be more clear. The definition of a blue light is exact. It is a very specific wavelength of photons scientifically. It represents a real thing.
Imagine if blue was defined by a hodge podge of not entirely quantifiable statistics. What if it could be in 2 different ranges of wavelength. What if there were many outliers that were categorized as blue but not exhibiting traits anywhere close to that range. What if there were also photons categorized as red that were in the same range as blue and were only considered red because of the origin of the light though the physical properties didn’t differ from “blue”. What if blue and reds could combine to exhibit normalized traits of either OR neither. What if the physical properties of every photon were entirely unique? That is what blue would be if it were defined similarly to race.
When you started talking about you not liking race because it is too inexact and there are not enough sub-sects you are actually agreeing with me. Really and truly to perfect “race” as a science races would have to be split and categorized over and over with every difference between people. And ultimately the perfection of race as a science would be a label and understanding of each and every genetic variation. In other words each individual would be their own category. Which is exactly the point I’ve been pushing.
Another example would be physics (which technically all science is). Newtonian physics is wrong. It is scientifically invalid. Period. People can use it. It is a good tool, BUT it isn’t true. In a perfected (and only true) science you could find one universally true formulation of physics and understand the behavior of everything. BUT it isn’t there. Quantum is still wrong. General relativity is wrong. And by the same token “race” science is wrong.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not 100% of the time. And not when you include all other groups as possibilities and not thought all stages of life and not if they’ve had jaw injuries. And I bet you can’t tell a boxer from a mut that looks like a boxer.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Another example would be physics (which technically all science is). Newtonian physics is wrong. It is scientifically invalid. Period. People can use it. It is a good tool, BUT it isn’t true. In a perfected (and only true) science you could find one universally true formulation of physics and understand the behavior of everything. BUT it isn’t there. Quantum is still wrong. General relativity is wrong. And by the same token “race” science is wrong. It only takes one counter example to disprove a theory entirely.[/quote]
So in summary: 1) The model is not 100% correct and so it is not scientific. 2) Ethnicity is probabilistic and thus you deem it as not scientific.
On these points:
But this makes no sense. Almost all the scientific models we have today will likely be proven wrong in the next 100 years. Does this mean that nothing we are doing now is scientific? Rubbish. Science is the process.
As long as it has followed this scientific process then it is science. So follow the scientific method, make your model falsifiable, and bam you have valid science.
Probabilistic models can be scientifically valid. If I create a model that can predict with 70% confidence if somebody is going to grow up short then even if you find 100 people whom the model doesn’t work with it does not disprove the model. The way to scientifically show the model is invalid is to show that in > (30% + error %) cases the model is incorrect.
You are basically stating that statistics cannot be used within models, which is inane.
And finally, just because a model is not 100% accurate does not mean it is not useful. Most medical tests are probabilistic (i.e. if your blood levels of such and such is > x you have a 70% chance of having cancer and should undergo further testing). Should we throw all our medical tests out? Is it non-scientific? Nonsense. You can have scientific tests that are not always accurate.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why exactly is it legal to discriminate against me because of the size of my ears, but not because of the color of my skin? Scientifically explain the difference.[/quote]
Historical context. If people had been heavily oppressed throughout history because of the size of their ears then it would likely be a protected class. Don’t be a dolt and act like everything has to be “scientific”. You are in danger of turning into a mindless idiot.
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not 100% of the time. And not when you include all other groups as possibilities and not thought all stages of life and not if they’ve had jaw injuries. And I bet you can’t tell a boxer from a mut that looks like a boxer.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Another example would be physics (which technically all science is). Newtonian physics is wrong. It is scientifically invalid. Period. People can use it. It is a good tool, BUT it isn’t true. In a perfected (and only true) science you could find one universally true formulation of physics and understand the behavior of everything. BUT it isn’t there. Quantum is still wrong. General relativity is wrong. And by the same token “race” science is wrong. It only takes one counter example to disprove a theory entirely.[/quote]
So in summary: 1) The model is not 100% correct and so it is not scientific. 2) Ethnicity is probabilistic and thus you deem it as not scientific.
On these points:
But this makes no sense. Almost all the scientific models we have today will likely be proven wrong in the next 100 years. Does this mean that nothing we are doing now is scientific? Rubbish. Science is the process.
As long as it has followed this scientific process then it is science. So follow the scientific method, make your model falsifiable, and bam you have valid science.
Probabilistic models can be scientifically valid. If I create a model that can predict with 70% confidence if somebody is going to grow up short then even if you find 100 people whom the model doesn’t work with it does not disprove the model. The way to scientifically show the model is invalid is to show that in > (30% + error %) cases the model is incorrect.
You are basically stating that statistics cannot be used within models, which is inane.
And finally, just because a model is not 100% accurate does not mean it is not useful. Most medical tests are probabilistic (i.e. if your blood levels of such and such is > x you have a 70% chance of having cancer and should undergo further testing). Should we throw all our medical tests out? Is it non-scientific? Nonsense. You can have scientific tests that are not always accurate.[/quote]
Worst strawman ever. Never anywhere ever did I say anything about that sort of thing not being science. Reading Fail.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why exactly is it legal to discriminate against me because of the size of my ears, but not because of the color of my skin? Scientifically explain the difference.[/quote]
Historical context. If people had been heavily oppressed throughout history because of the size of their ears then it would likely be a protected class. Don’t be a dolt and act like everything has to be “scientific”. You are in danger of turning into a mindless idiot.
[/quote]
Historical context is nothing but an emotion. And by this definition it has nothing to do with actual right and wrong. Being a dolt is basing legal judgments on historical context instead of the merits of the actual case.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?[/quote]
Because we have. And the report suggests the explanation is beyone simply “poverty.”
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Historical context is nothing but an emotion. And by this definition it has nothing to do with actual right and wrong. Being a dolt is basing legal judgments on historical context instead of the merits of the actual case.[/quote]
??
Prove historical context is nothing but an emotion.
It is about social results. The actual individual instance is not all that important.
Historical context is important because it gives us better predictive ability about what might happen in the future.
If I fire you because you have big ears…well you can go get another job elsewhere. It is a free labor market. If it was likely that allowing employers to fire at will people with big ears would result in an entire segment of society being heavily discriminated against then it might warrant inclusion as a protected class.
So the problem with allowing an employer to fire a person because of color is that it might become socially popular again and lead to entire segments of society being discriminated against.
At the individual level it might be no different. But at the social level it is. Society doesn’t treat race and ear size the same.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?[/quote]
Because we have. And the report suggests the explanation is beyone simply “poverty.”[/quote]
Eh DoubleDuce doesn’t think that race or culture are valid measures of anything. Good luck trying to convince him otherwise Sloth.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Historical context is nothing but an emotion. And by this definition it has nothing to do with actual right and wrong. Being a dolt is basing legal judgments on historical context instead of the merits of the actual case.[/quote]
??
Prove historical context is nothing but an emotion.[/quote] NO, you used the term in a definition, you better define it[quote]
It is about social results. The actual individual instance is not all that important.
Historical context is important because it gives us better predictive ability about what might happen in the future.
If I fire you because you have big ears…well you can go get another job elsewhere. It is a free labor market. If it was likely that allowing employers to fire at will people with big ears would result in an entire segment of society being heavily discriminated against then it might warrant inclusion as a protected class.
So the problem with allowing an employer to fire a person because of color is that it might become socially popular again and lead to entire segments of society being discriminated against.
At the individual level it might be no different. But at the social level it is. Society doesn’t treat race and ear size the same.[/quote]
This is the collectivist drivel that is the exact problem with most of the world today. Getting fired for a dumb reason hurts the same regardless if that reason is tied to race or not.
You are advocating punishing people for possible social consequences. This is insane. This is the opposite of individual freedom and liberty. By this same logic the government should have acces to every desition we make. They should be able to dictate diet and exercise and weight and education and news outlets and jobs and your recreation and procreation and sterilization and ANYTHING else.
This is the evil that is Hitler and Stalin and Mao every other society that has put collectivism above individual.
collectives cannot by definition feel, or touch or be hurt or think. They do not have rights. They are not real entities. Things done in the name of the majority are nothing but the lowest form of evil. The individual is all anyone is. The individual is all that can matter.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Worst strawman ever. Never anywhere ever did I say anything about that sort of thing not being science. Reading Fail.[/quote]
You are saying that ethnicity is not a scientifically valid concept because it is not always accurate.
I have shown a concept does not need to be 100% accurate to be a valid scientific concept.
Simple logic dictates your argument is flawed.[/quote]
Never said that. BUT valid scientific concept doesn’t equal correct. Period. The flat earth was a valid scientific concept at one point. Hell, in elementary classical physics the concept is even still used (ground is considered flat). But it is still absolutely 100% incorrect.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?[/quote]
Because we have. And the report suggests the explanation is beyone simply “poverty.”[/quote]
Eh DoubleDuce doesn’t think that race or culture are valid measures of anything. Good luck trying to convince him otherwise Sloth.
I like the idea of genetic engineering.[/quote]
You obviously do not understand what I have written, so do not attribute ideas to me that are of your own imagination.
Generic concepts of race and culture are fundamentally flawed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?[/quote]
Because we have. And the report suggests the explanation is beyone simply “poverty.”[/quote]
The cause and the problem may be 2 different things. The problem is that some kinds aren’t being educated, The cause could be any number of things. A program to help the uneducated in general would attempt to address both, without the stipulation of race.