I am interested in racical eliminativism and conservatism, don't think I've come across those terms before but definitely would like to know more about them
We will definitely cover them. They deal with concepts you likely have heard of in more common parlance of whether we should not use the concepts of race (i.e. be color blind or "not see race") because they fail to map onto any biological reality, if we should keep the current distinctions (conservatism). I think the terms come from Ron Mallon's work, but they have become more widely used in various encyclopedias.
I mostly get stuck on one of the initial questions when thinking of things like these. Especially when it comes to the modern day(read: American) discussion -- which sadly has now also found its way to Europe. Because for the life of me I cant figure out what "white" actually entails. The same goes, though to a lesser extent, for "black". All these term are so poorly defined and used in so many different ways, that the whole concept barely makes sense. My preliminary conclusion is that the modern day discussion has very little to do with race and are mostly just political movements. As for if the more classical/historical meaning of race has some value? I honestly don't know. Never really thought about it for longer than 5 minutes. Doesn't really seem very relevant to modern day society. Maybe there are some niche scientific fields it has some use and meaning in. For example in genetic studies, medicine or taxonomy. Who knows.
The views that you have are aligned with some of the views espoused here. The position that "race" is solely a political or social classification is in line with the view of "racial constructivism" that race is something that exists as a creation of human culture and decisions. The claim that the concept of race is not relevant or useful in modern society is "racial elimitivism". These are live philosophical debates which are often oversimplified in regular discourse.
In the past asian people were also called white, white is just a description of the phenotype, unless you want to dig deeper into a genotype, which you could argue for, but then you may run into a problem of being unable to determine reliably what race somebody belongs to.
'God' and 'race' are troubling terms. They appear constantly in public discourse; they feature prominently in social and political debate which often leads to anger and bitterness. Yet I don't recall an instance in which a serious attempt at definition was made in all the mass media referencing of God or race. So is the public discourse really a coherent never-ending dialogue or is it mere sound and fury? What does the average person actually mean (or think he means) when using terms like 'race' or 'racism'? Is there even a plausible definition of 'race' that everyone would accept?
There is disagreement as to what constitutes race (or if it really exists at all). There is also disagreement as to what constitutes racism. As you note, much of this real debate is not had in the media or public space rather it is assumed or glossed over.
For philosophy in general, or specifically philosophy of race? For the philosophy of race, Appiah has some great ones such as "Color Conscious" or "In My Father's House" or anything in the reference section of the SEP article (plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/). For philosophy in general, there are so many options. For an overview Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is a great option. If you want to start at the beginning you can't go wrong with some Socratic dialogues. If you want a more accessible, fun, modern pop-philosophy check out "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar". For more accessible works on logic and some fun logic puzzles check out the works of Raymond Smullyan. I could go on, but it makes me realize that I should make some videos on good books to get into philosophy.
Great question. I have not made them yet, but I hope to soon. There's a video on 7 Types of Racism that I am hoping to put out once the series on postmodernism is done, and then maybe do some of these videos. There are just so many videos to make and so little time!
I think I'm a kind of racial conservative. As for the metaphysics of race, I think I lean towards constructivism, but I never thought about it that much.
This topic is too clouded by politics to be discussed rationally today. It is interesting, but I don’t find the discourse I’ve heard in the public square to be impartial or honest. Humanity isn’t ready quite yet for an honest discourse.
We have just had over a year learning the lesson that Mother Nature is made up of chemistry, biology and physics, and rewards only adaptation strategies that act according to those same things. If your adaptation strategy is grounded instead in ideology, or racial politics and on, Mother Nature will mercilessly expose that as a failed strategy. Nature is, and always will be the strongest force in the world. We can work with it or against it, but it always bats last at 1000%. It hasn’t lost...ever.
The following questions are interesting: 1. what defines race?: this question should answer the secondary question "how do different groups of people differ in average" and "what degree and type of difference are needed to separate each race", even though many different answers are valid and useful, each in its own discussion context; 2. do races differ in any properties, either physical or behavioral?: this is a dead question (that most people try to force through), as the only way for it to be answered "no" is if we mess up the definition of race from the previous question. In all useful definitions of race, differences will be visible (a definition that doesn't define what's outside of itself, defines nothing at all). 3. how do these differences affect reality and coexistence when multiple races interact?: this question is, in my estimation, the most interesting and important one. 4. which combination of answers from the previous questions would ascertain the best possible future for humanity? Many of the fruitless discussions on top of race I see or hear end up dying because the participants didn't agree on a framework regarding #1 and #2, neither implicitly nor explicitly, which makes any argument useless. But even after agreeing on a framework for these first two questions, the discussion on #3 is incredibly deep, philosophical, and pressing. Note that even though eliminativism might aim for the elimination of the definition of race altogether, it would only open the spot for different terminology to describe these population-level differences and sensitive/dangerous correlations. I believe we might come to a point (in the distant future) where the definition of race isn't needed anymore, once we settle on the more precise and internal terms to talk about these differences as needed. But until then, eliminativism seems like a dream arriving too soon. I would agree that the etymology of race and its use elsewhere is a good point in favor of "nominal/normative eliminativism", but again, we would just fall back to other terms in the current issues. In other terms, even though I'd love to see it done, fixing the terminology doesn't fix the underlying issues. I definitely hope this channel can go through #1 and #2, even if just at the surface level, and finally reach #3. I'm looking forward to it!
I'm not sure where exactly this falls within the range of philosophical viewpoints that you mentioned ... I don't believe "race" really exists in any essential biological sense, but I do think it's useful and important as a sociological and historical concept for studying how people perceive themselves and are perceived by others. To me, the question of whether race exists seems almost similar to the question of whether math exists. I'm skeptical of either of them inherently "existing" in a fundamental sense, and yet they are both useful ways that humans use to describe and draw conclusions about the world. Where exactly is the boundary between a sociological, descriptive study of race, and a philosophical discussion of race? Or is there even a clean boundary?
@Gustavus Mercurius Well what I mean is there isn't really any consistent biological definition for race. "Races" in a sociological sense don't even correspond directly with genetic notions of ancestry, and even between groups with different geographical / genetic origins, it's pretty arbitrary where we construct lines we call "races". Not to say there is no correspondence, but I don't think it's really an inherent property of humanity at least in any clear-cut sense.
Race is real, not merely a philosophy. Its really an issue that shouldn't be so triggering & its not when in context of certain races & is when in context of others. This is the real problem. Its like natural order isn't a philosophy either because its self evident. No one can honestly argue natural order doesn't exist. Chaos is the opposite of natural order or what id simply call "Order". Without order nothing could survive. Emotions created by survivalism are natural but not always legit. Emotions based solely from rejection of natures design are what's irrelevant & taking them serious leads to chaos. Philosophy is good when trying to create but its used more as a destructive force.
It’s kind of cool how if you asked different cultures how many races there are in the world they would give you different answers. Some people consider Hispanic/Latino people white and some consider them mixed and some consider them their own race. It’s obvious that there is a genetic and physical diversity among humans that are correlated with geography and ancestry, but we can’t really be divided neatly into 4 or 5 essential groups based on those differences. I think societies demarcate races based on history and what is important to their culture. I believe that races are socially constructed groups based on whatever physical differences are deemed important, but the groups aren’t essential; it wouldn’t be true to say that there is a “jewish character” or a “black essence,” and those ideas have been used to spread hatred toward those groups. What do you think? Is this a racial constructivist stance?
Carneades, personally, I would have appreciated it had you spelled out "Kwame Appiah". Had a helluva time looking him up given your breezy pronunciation pronunciation.
🤔 Indeed. There is a self perpetuating area of quasi intellectual discourse that thrives on creating ever more dense terminology to disguise the vacuity of their material. I have challenged this over many years by asking for a verifiable definition of ‘race’ without receiving a considered response. Instead I am accused of being a ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ without any further explanation. Thus I conclude that there is no such definition and that the entire ‘race industry’ stands on nothing of any substance.
There is so much that is metaphysics (it is a bit of the grab bag of philosophy) that I am skeptical any intro course could cover everything. That said, these concepts likely fit into the metaphysical portion of philosophy of race more than metaphysics writ large.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat The view that race is not real, or is a vacuous concept is a real philosophical view (racial skepticism). The great thing about philosophy is that it fills the logical space, so any view you have on a concept (even that the concept does not exist) you can find a philosopher with arguments to defend it.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene yeah, even rejecting philosophy or logic itself or our capacity to know are all philosophical positions, such as hard scientism, logical nihilism, skepticism, humean empiricism, etc. By skepticism I mean actual skepticism not youtube atheist "skeptics" how accept material reality, that our sences work, that science works and many more things without question.
For racial skeptics, yes (others think that race is a real thing if not a biological thing). Then again, a lot of analytic philosophy is trying to figure out what we really mean by the words that we say and how those words matter.
The idea that racism and evolutionary biology are different is ridiculous. Certain species are more developed to achieve things. The others are a long for the ride.
I am confused, are you expressing a "racial naturalist" viewpoint? The problem is that such a viewpoint is not backed up by the science it claims to be. We'll cover it in a future video, but for now here's the SEP: "Whereas folk theories rely on geography to divide humanity into African, European, Asian, and Amerindian races, contemporary population genetics reveal the vacuity of this foundation for two reasons. First, geographically based environmental stimuli lead to continuous physical adaptations in skin, hair and bone rather than the discrete differences associated with race; and second, although mitochondrial DNA mutations provide evidence of the geographical origins of populations, these mutations do not correlate with the physical traits associated with racial groups. Similarly, phenotypes cannot ground folk theories of race: for instance, differences in skin tone are gradual, not discrete; and blood-type variations occur independently of the more visible phenotypes associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture. Race cannot be founded upon transmission genetics, since the genes transmitted from one generation to the next lead to very specific physical traits, not general racial characteristics shared by all members of a putatively racial group. And finally, genealogy cannot ground race, since clades (populations descended from a common ancestor) may have common genetic characteristics, but these need not correlate with the visible traits associated with races. Zack concludes: “Essences, geography, phenotypes, genotypes, and genealogy are the only known candidates for physical scientific bases of race. Each fails. Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy” (Zack 2002, 88)."
@@thotslayer9914 Maybe it’s your disinclination to provide competent and verifiable evidence to support your unequivocal assertion? The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene The idea that we can examine a bird species for instance, has a common ancestor but there where enough environmental factors that ultimately lead to a divergence.
@@thotslayer9914 People in liberal systems are free to believe anything they wish, and they’re free to argue for anything they want, but to claim that such beliefs are knowledge and demand they be respected as such is another matter. Have your FUN in the manner of a self-absorbed provocative teenager! 😂 In this system, 1. No one gets the final say: you may claim that a statement is established as knowledge only if it can be debunked, in principle, and only insofar as it withstands attempts to debunk it. 2. No one has personal authority: you may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement.
The problem is there’s no evidence of speciation among people. What you’ve said is in principle correct, but because your supposition is false, the entire statement is as empty as the space between your ears.
@@o.s.h.4613 As much as I hate to copy Carneades.org's method, here is the same quote from SEP: "Whereas folk theories rely on geography to divide humanity into African, European, Asian, and Amerindian races, contemporary population genetics reveal the vacuity of this foundation for two reasons. First, geographically based environmental stimuli lead to continuous physical adaptations in skin, hair and bone rather than the discrete differences associated with race; and second, although mitochondrial DNA mutations provide evidence of the geographical origins of populations, these mutations do not correlate with the physical traits associated with racial groups. Similarly, phenotypes cannot ground folk theories of race: for instance, differences in skin tone are gradual, not discrete; and blood-type variations occur independently of the more visible phenotypes associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture. Race cannot be founded upon transmission genetics, since the genes transmitted from one generation to the next lead to very specific physical traits, not general racial characteristics shared by all members of a putatively racial group. And finally, genealogy cannot ground race, since clades (populations descended from a common ancestor) may have common genetic characteristics, but these need not correlate with the visible traits associated with races. Zack concludes: “Essences, geography, phenotypes, genotypes, and genealogy are the only known candidates for physical scientific bases of race. Each fails. Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy” (Zack 2002, 88)."
@@o.s.h.4613 Has been shown that the genetic differences between races differ only marginally compared between the differences between genetics of the same racial group. And this provides no justification for biological racial realism.
@@CosmoShidan It's called Lewontin fallacy and it comes from misunderstanding quite basic concepts in statistics. Human populations can be clustrered using K-means methods into separate races in a way that gives almost 100% ancestry predictions (read Sampson, Kidd, Kidd,Zhao: Selecting SNPs to Identify Ancestry ). Increasing number of clusters doesn't cause clusters to oscillate, but rather creates a hierarchy of clusters which means that the basic racial clusters are real patterns. Moreover, Fst for humans is about 0.12 and typical species with such Fst have 3-5 subspecies (red winged black bird, humpback whale, zebra). So stop spreading this anti-scientific BS. "Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy" if there was no such basis, services like 23anMe literally couldn't exist! How brainwashed one has to be to believe in such lunacies?
Really interesting topic, it's good to keep these snippets short and vague to a point to protect this channel's existence. Keep up the great work
Why would this channels existence be threatened?
I am interested in racical eliminativism and conservatism, don't think I've come across those terms before but definitely would like to know more about them
We will definitely cover them. They deal with concepts you likely have heard of in more common parlance of whether we should not use the concepts of race (i.e. be color blind or "not see race") because they fail to map onto any biological reality, if we should keep the current distinctions (conservatism). I think the terms come from Ron Mallon's work, but they have become more widely used in various encyclopedias.
I mostly get stuck on one of the initial questions when thinking of things like these. Especially when it comes to the modern day(read: American) discussion -- which sadly has now also found its way to Europe. Because for the life of me I cant figure out what "white" actually entails. The same goes, though to a lesser extent, for "black". All these term are so poorly defined and used in so many different ways, that the whole concept barely makes sense.
My preliminary conclusion is that the modern day discussion has very little to do with race and are mostly just political movements.
As for if the more classical/historical meaning of race has some value? I honestly don't know. Never really thought about it for longer than 5 minutes. Doesn't really seem very relevant to modern day society. Maybe there are some niche scientific fields it has some use and meaning in. For example in genetic studies, medicine or taxonomy. Who knows.
The views that you have are aligned with some of the views espoused here. The position that "race" is solely a political or social classification is in line with the view of "racial constructivism" that race is something that exists as a creation of human culture and decisions. The claim that the concept of race is not relevant or useful in modern society is "racial elimitivism". These are live philosophical debates which are often oversimplified in regular discourse.
In the past asian people were also called white, white is just a description of the phenotype, unless you want to dig deeper into a genotype, which you could argue for, but then you may run into a problem of being unable to determine reliably what race somebody belongs to.
'God' and 'race' are troubling terms. They appear constantly in public discourse; they feature prominently in social and political debate which often leads to anger and bitterness. Yet I don't recall an instance in which a serious attempt at definition was made in all the mass media referencing of God or race. So is the public discourse really a coherent never-ending dialogue or is it mere sound and fury? What does the average person actually mean (or think he means) when using terms like 'race' or 'racism'? Is there even a plausible definition of 'race' that everyone would accept?
There is disagreement as to what constitutes race (or if it really exists at all). There is also disagreement as to what constitutes racism. As you note, much of this real debate is not had in the media or public space rather it is assumed or glossed over.
Do you have any book recommendations? Advice would be appreciated, thanks.
For philosophy in general, or specifically philosophy of race? For the philosophy of race, Appiah has some great ones such as "Color Conscious" or "In My Father's House" or anything in the reference section of the SEP article (plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/).
For philosophy in general, there are so many options. For an overview Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy is a great option. If you want to start at the beginning you can't go wrong with some Socratic dialogues. If you want a more accessible, fun, modern pop-philosophy check out "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar". For more accessible works on logic and some fun logic puzzles check out the works of Raymond Smullyan. I could go on, but it makes me realize that I should make some videos on good books to get into philosophy.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene please do, make a video about book recommendations and thanks for the advice.
I cant find the next parts to this; they were Available before.
Great question. I have not made them yet, but I hope to soon. There's a video on 7 Types of Racism that I am hoping to put out once the series on postmodernism is done, and then maybe do some of these videos. There are just so many videos to make and so little time!
I would love to hear you talk more about the ethics of race philosophy
Great! I have a couple of videos coming up that dig into this more. :)
I think I'm a kind of racial conservative. As for the metaphysics of race, I think I lean towards constructivism, but I never thought about it that much.
This topic is too clouded by politics to be discussed rationally today. It is interesting, but I don’t find the discourse I’ve heard in the public square to be impartial or honest. Humanity isn’t ready quite yet for an honest discourse.
We all have inherit biases.
We have just had over a year learning the lesson that Mother Nature is made up of chemistry, biology and physics, and rewards only adaptation strategies that act according to those same things. If your adaptation strategy is grounded instead in ideology, or racial politics and on, Mother Nature will mercilessly expose that as a failed strategy.
Nature is, and always will be the strongest force in the world. We can work with it or against it, but it always bats last at 1000%. It hasn’t lost...ever.
The following questions are interesting:
1. what defines race?: this question should answer the secondary question "how do different groups of people differ in average" and "what degree and type of difference are needed to separate each race", even though many different answers are valid and useful, each in its own discussion context;
2. do races differ in any properties, either physical or behavioral?: this is a dead question (that most people try to force through), as the only way for it to be answered "no" is if we mess up the definition of race from the previous question. In all useful definitions of race, differences will be visible (a definition that doesn't define what's outside of itself, defines nothing at all).
3. how do these differences affect reality and coexistence when multiple races interact?: this question is, in my estimation, the most interesting and important one.
4. which combination of answers from the previous questions would ascertain the best possible future for humanity?
Many of the fruitless discussions on top of race I see or hear end up dying because the participants didn't agree on a framework regarding #1 and #2, neither implicitly nor explicitly, which makes any argument useless. But even after agreeing on a framework for these first two questions, the discussion on #3 is incredibly deep, philosophical, and pressing.
Note that even though eliminativism might aim for the elimination of the definition of race altogether, it would only open the spot for different terminology to describe these population-level differences and sensitive/dangerous correlations. I believe we might come to a point (in the distant future) where the definition of race isn't needed anymore, once we settle on the more precise and internal terms to talk about these differences as needed. But until then, eliminativism seems like a dream arriving too soon. I would agree that the etymology of race and its use elsewhere is a good point in favor of "nominal/normative eliminativism", but again, we would just fall back to other terms in the current issues. In other terms, even though I'd love to see it done, fixing the terminology doesn't fix the underlying issues.
I definitely hope this channel can go through #1 and #2, even if just at the surface level, and finally reach #3. I'm looking forward to it!
Is it consistent with skepticism to dismiss ideas that may generally be considered "racist"? Does skepticism defer to science?
I'm not sure where exactly this falls within the range of philosophical viewpoints that you mentioned ... I don't believe "race" really exists in any essential biological sense, but I do think it's useful and important as a sociological and historical concept for studying how people perceive themselves and are perceived by others.
To me, the question of whether race exists seems almost similar to the question of whether math exists. I'm skeptical of either of them inherently "existing" in a fundamental sense, and yet they are both useful ways that humans use to describe and draw conclusions about the world.
Where exactly is the boundary between a sociological, descriptive study of race, and a philosophical discussion of race? Or is there even a clean boundary?
Based on reading other comments it seems this may be called racial constructivism
@Gustavus Mercurius Well what I mean is there isn't really any consistent biological definition for race. "Races" in a sociological sense don't even correspond directly with genetic notions of ancestry, and even between groups with different geographical / genetic origins, it's pretty arbitrary where we construct lines we call "races". Not to say there is no correspondence, but I don't think it's really an inherent property of humanity at least in any clear-cut sense.
@Gustavus Mercurius so wrong. How weird to say what you said.
This is great and I would like to see all of the above broken down in more detail.
Sounds good. It would definitely be interesting to do individual videos on all the positions covered here. Thanks!
Race is real, not merely a philosophy. Its really an issue that shouldn't be so triggering & its not when in context of certain races & is when in context of others. This is the real problem. Its like natural order isn't a philosophy either because its self evident. No one can honestly argue natural order doesn't exist. Chaos is the opposite of natural order or what id simply call "Order". Without order nothing could survive. Emotions created by survivalism are natural but not always legit. Emotions based solely from rejection of natures design are what's irrelevant & taking them serious leads to chaos. Philosophy is good when trying to create but its used more as a destructive force.
It’s kind of cool how if you asked different cultures how many races there are in the world they would give you different answers. Some people consider Hispanic/Latino people white and some consider them mixed and some consider them their own race. It’s obvious that there is a genetic and physical diversity among humans that are correlated with geography and ancestry, but we can’t really be divided neatly into 4 or 5 essential groups based on those differences. I think societies demarcate races based on history and what is important to their culture. I believe that races are socially constructed groups based on whatever physical differences are deemed important, but the groups aren’t essential; it wouldn’t be true to say that there is a “jewish character” or a “black essence,” and those ideas have been used to spread hatred toward those groups. What do you think? Is this a racial constructivist stance?
Do you have one like this on gender
Interesting video.
Super!!! What can I say - it is awesome!
Ethics: Racial Eliminativism and Racial Conservativism are more interesting. Thank you.
Carneades, personally, I would have appreciated it had you spelled out "Kwame Appiah". Had a helluva time looking him up given your breezy pronunciation pronunciation.
Fair enough. Breezy is a nice way of speaking of my rough pronunciation of various names. :) I've added a spelling to the video description.
Based
Racial skepticism, Racial Population Naturalism, and Racial Conservatism? I have never came across those terms when I took intro to metaphysics!
🤔 Indeed. There is a self perpetuating area of quasi intellectual discourse that thrives on creating ever more dense terminology to disguise the vacuity of their material. I have challenged this over many years by asking for a verifiable definition of ‘race’ without receiving a considered response. Instead I am accused of being a ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ without any further explanation. Thus I conclude that there is no such definition and that the entire ‘race industry’ stands on nothing of any substance.
There is so much that is metaphysics (it is a bit of the grab bag of philosophy) that I am skeptical any intro course could cover everything. That said, these concepts likely fit into the metaphysical portion of philosophy of race more than metaphysics writ large.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat The view that race is not real, or is a vacuous concept is a real philosophical view (racial skepticism). The great thing about philosophy is that it fills the logical space, so any view you have on a concept (even that the concept does not exist) you can find a philosopher with arguments to defend it.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene yeah, even rejecting philosophy or logic itself or our capacity to know are all philosophical positions, such as hard scientism, logical nihilism, skepticism, humean empiricism, etc. By skepticism I mean actual skepticism not youtube atheist "skeptics" how accept material reality, that our sences work, that science works and many more things without question.
Uh PH of race... its more the PH of the ideas that construct this word race
For racial skeptics, yes (others think that race is a real thing if not a biological thing). Then again, a lot of analytic philosophy is trying to figure out what we really mean by the words that we say and how those words matter.
The idea that racism and evolutionary biology are different is ridiculous. Certain species are more developed to achieve things. The others are a long for the ride.
I am confused, are you expressing a "racial naturalist" viewpoint? The problem is that such a viewpoint is not backed up by the science it claims to be. We'll cover it in a future video, but for now here's the SEP:
"Whereas folk theories rely on geography to divide humanity into African, European, Asian, and Amerindian races, contemporary population genetics reveal the vacuity of this foundation for two reasons. First, geographically based environmental stimuli lead to continuous physical adaptations in skin, hair and bone rather than the discrete differences associated with race; and second, although mitochondrial DNA mutations provide evidence of the geographical origins of populations, these mutations do not correlate with the physical traits associated with racial groups. Similarly, phenotypes cannot ground folk theories of race: for instance, differences in skin tone are gradual, not discrete; and blood-type variations occur independently of the more visible phenotypes associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture. Race cannot be founded upon transmission genetics, since the genes transmitted from one generation to the next lead to very specific physical traits, not general racial characteristics shared by all members of a putatively racial group. And finally, genealogy cannot ground race, since clades (populations descended from a common ancestor) may have common genetic characteristics, but these need not correlate with the visible traits associated with races. Zack concludes: “Essences, geography, phenotypes, genotypes, and genealogy are the only known candidates for physical scientific bases of race. Each fails. Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy” (Zack 2002, 88)."
@@thotslayer9914 Maybe it’s your disinclination to provide competent and verifiable evidence to support your unequivocal assertion?
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene The idea that we can examine a bird species for instance, has a common ancestor but there where enough environmental factors that ultimately lead to a divergence.
@@thotslayer9914
People in liberal systems are free to believe anything they wish, and they’re free to argue for anything they want, but to claim that such beliefs are knowledge and demand they be respected as such is another matter.
Have your FUN in the manner of a self-absorbed provocative teenager! 😂
In this system,
1. No one gets the final say: you may claim that a statement is established as knowledge only if it can be debunked, in principle, and only insofar as it withstands attempts to debunk it.
2. No one has personal authority: you may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement.
The problem is there’s no evidence of speciation among people.
What you’ve said is in principle correct, but because your supposition is false, the entire statement is as empty as the space between your ears.
You will find the answer to this question in the "The Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin.
Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing to say on race. In fact, biological theory of race was eliminated in the video.
@@o.s.h.4613 As much as I hate to copy Carneades.org's method, here is the same quote from SEP:
"Whereas folk theories rely on geography to divide humanity into African, European, Asian, and Amerindian races, contemporary population genetics reveal the vacuity of this foundation for two reasons. First, geographically based environmental stimuli lead to continuous physical adaptations in skin, hair and bone rather than the discrete differences associated with race; and second, although mitochondrial DNA mutations provide evidence of the geographical origins of populations, these mutations do not correlate with the physical traits associated with racial groups. Similarly, phenotypes cannot ground folk theories of race: for instance, differences in skin tone are gradual, not discrete; and blood-type variations occur independently of the more visible phenotypes associated with race, such as skin color and hair texture. Race cannot be founded upon transmission genetics, since the genes transmitted from one generation to the next lead to very specific physical traits, not general racial characteristics shared by all members of a putatively racial group. And finally, genealogy cannot ground race, since clades (populations descended from a common ancestor) may have common genetic characteristics, but these need not correlate with the visible traits associated with races. Zack concludes: “Essences, geography, phenotypes, genotypes, and genealogy are the only known candidates for physical scientific bases of race. Each fails. Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy” (Zack 2002, 88)."
@@o.s.h.4613 Has been shown that the genetic differences between races differ only marginally compared between the differences between genetics of the same racial group. And this provides no justification for biological racial realism.
@@CosmoShidan It's called Lewontin fallacy and it comes from misunderstanding quite basic concepts in statistics. Human populations can be clustrered using K-means methods into separate races in a way that gives almost 100% ancestry predictions (read Sampson, Kidd, Kidd,Zhao: Selecting SNPs to Identify Ancestry ). Increasing number of clusters doesn't cause clusters to oscillate, but rather creates a hierarchy of clusters which means that the basic racial clusters are real patterns. Moreover, Fst for humans is about 0.12 and typical species with such Fst have 3-5 subspecies (red winged black bird, humpback whale, zebra). So stop spreading this anti-scientific BS. "Therefore, there is no physical scientific basis for the social racial taxonomy" if there was no such basis, services like 23anMe literally couldn't exist! How brainwashed one has to be to believe in such lunacies?
@@nostra533 It's not true. It's called the Lewontin Fallacy