How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[Murky]

OK, so to you "race" is "that which explains". Now, how do you define this apparently quite powerful thing?

No─race is that which is─not what explains.

Stop putting words in Science's mouth.

Science does not reify your prejudices

What prejudices would those be?

 

[Verbose]

No─race is that which is─not what explains.

Obviously you didn't understand the question.

How do you know?

 

[Murky]

How do you know?

What do you mean know?

Like I said, it's politically risky to even mention that there are differences let alone try to claim that one race may have an evolutionary advantage. Even though I certainly don't have disdain for any race I still get accused of prejudice.

 

[Tacitusitis]

You made a claim that races are sufficiently genetically different to account for differential success in math and sports.

That's just not supported*


*"That's just not supported" is a scientist's way of saying shush

 

[Murky]

You made a claim that races are sufficiently genetically different to account for differential success in math and sports.

That's just not supported*


*"That's just not supported" is a scientist's way of saying shush

Isn't it supported by observation? Whatever happened to pursuing a line a reasoning even if you it takes out of your comfort zone?

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't it supported by observation? Whatever happened to pursuing a line a reasoning even if you it takes out of your comfort zone?

Because this particular line has already been quite thoroughly demonstrated by contemporary evolutionary biology to be no more than wilful nonsense, and so whatever conclusion it leads you to can be of no benefit.

 

[Murky]

Because this particular line has already been quite thoroughly demonstrated by contemporary evolutionary biology to be no more than wilful nonsense, and so whatever conclusion it leads you to can be of no benefit.

So in other words, nobody gave it serious thought because it invoked feelings of prejudice and was politically incorrect. It would receive no public funding...

 

[GenMarshall]

Social Darwinism is an immoral concept that the poor gets poorer and suffer while the rich get richer and stomp on the poor.

 

[Traitorfish]

So in other words, nobody gave it serious thought because it invoked feelings of prejudice and was politically incorrect. It would receive no public funding...

Scientific racism was the dominant school of scientific thought until the 1930s. It was over-turned despite widely held feelings of prejudice, not because of them.

 

[Verbose]

Isn't it supported by observation? Whatever happened to pursuing a line a reasoning even if you it takes out of your comfort zone?

You have observational data which specifies what race is and which races there are? That is the question. The reason I'm asking is that there exists no definition of any races, and for very good reasons. Attempts to define the damn things have been intermittently ongoing for a couple of centuries. I will go out on a limb here and propose that the best you're going to be able to come up with is some weak generalisations based on the kind of common-sense thinking which cannot be substantiated.

I'm quite happy to inhabit the discomfort zone in this matter. (I know of a few interesting areas of unquantifiable matters of skill in possibly discerning a few things that are very non-PC, which is something that can be discusse behind closed doors between osteologists, forensic anthropologists et al.)

That is, as long as it amounts to more than someone demanding the concept of race just be taken for granted as unproblematic, with nothing to substantiate the claim - except possibly insinuations of everyone asking for a bit of precision and intellectual honesty is just a scardy-pants.

Argue your position, if you have one.

What is a race? How does one define one? What does it mean?

The reason for asking this is that as soon as you claim "race does something", it is "that which explains". If asked "how do we know?", race suddenly becomes "that which needs explaining".

At least the better class of 19th c. skull-measurers knew quite well, and admitted as much, as that "race" first needed to be defined, before discussion could begin about what it actually did (if anything). That was at least logically coherent and inetellectually honest. They failed of course, but that's another matter.

 

[Murky]

Scientific racism was the dominant school of scientific thought until the 1930s. It was over-turned despite widely held feelings of prejudice, not because of them.

I think we're talking about two separate things. I'm certainly not advocating Aryan Superiority or any silly nonsense like that.

What am pointing out is that through simple observation(maybe look at statistical averages too) there is evidence of having different racial traits that could be advantageous in some areas but we are roughly equivalent─in human potential.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think we're talking about two separate things. I'm certainly not advocating Aryan Superiority or any silly nonsense like that.

Nope. Just because you don't attach any moral judgements to your particular advocacy of Scientific Racism doesn't mean that there's a fundamental distinction.

What am pointing out is that through simple observation(maybe look at statistical averages too) there is evidence of having different racial traits that could be advantageous in some areas but we are roughly equivalent─in human potential.

But the evidence simply doesn't support this. Indeed, the very notion of "race" as you use it- a monolithic division within the human race- is fundamentally incompatible with our knowledge of human biology.

 

[Murky]

What is a race? How does one define one? What does it mean?

As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

 

[Defiant47]

Thread ended here.

Oh, it's very easy. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because natural selection exists does not mean that it ought to be what is considered ethical.

Next thread?

"The strong will survive" in nature does not mean that "the strong should survive" in human society, or even "the strong should survive" in nature. That you're still arguing about this baffles me.

 

[cubsfan6506]

conclusion of thread there is two levels of humans

1.Everyone but fallen angel lord
2. Fallen angel lord

 

[Souron]

Evolution is science

Social Darwinism is an ideology

FACT: I can pick and chose the ideologies I believe in.

I disagree. Philosophy is a lot more contested than the physical sciences, but that does not mean that there isn't one correct ideology. There are ideologies that are blatantly incorrect by virtue of being self contradictory. Others are unlikely because they lead to intuitively abhorrent conclusions. Others are simply incomplete. With enough study and debate it should be possible to establish a consensus on what is the correct world view.

So no, you can't pick and choose the ideologies you believe. If you believe in logical contradictions I take issue with that.

 

[Traitorfish]

As a biological term, race denotes genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)

Maybe you should read your links more closely...

While scientists use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, the scientific community feels that the idea of race is often used by the general public in a naïve or simplistic way, erroneously designating wholly discrete types of individuals. Among humans, race has no cladistic significance—all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.

...Because that pretty much obliterates your entire position.

 

[Murky]

Maybe you should read your links more closely...

...Because that pretty much obliterates your entire position.

Not really, but we can say you win if it makes you feel any better.


Just to toss out a hypothetical. Let's say we send a group of colonists to planet-x. Planet-X has an environment similar to earth but it's different enough to have different natural selection pressures on Humans than those on earth. After tens of thousands of years, the planet's population is noticeably different from that of their Earth ancestors. They have evolved into a sub species of Human and gave themselves a new classification. They would be considered a different race wouldn't they?

 

[Traitorfish]

Just to toss out a hypothetical. Let's stay we send a group of colonists to planet-x. Planet-X has an environment similar to earth but it's different enough to have different natural selection pressures on Humans than those on earth. After tens of thousands of years, the planet's population is noticeably different from that of their Earth ancestors. They have evolved into a sub species of Human and gave themselves a new classification. They would be considered a different race wouldn't they?

No, they would be considered a different sub-species, just as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are (in the view that accepts them as a sub-species of H. sapiens and not a distinct species, etc, etc.). "Race" is not a concept with any "cladistic significance", as Wikipedia puts it.

 

[Archbob]

Look, superiority of genes has no standing or evidence on the racial level. Its only on the individual level. To say that one race is "superior" to another is completely folly. However, to say that certain individuals are "superior" in terms of fitness to survive or thrive can actually be quite accurate.

Both "superior" and "inferior" traits exhibit themselves fairly uniformly across all races. Its at the individual level that intelligence, laziness, physical attributes, can be compared, not on a racial level.

Evolution within the human species is not an excuse for racism -- the different races of humanity simply have no been separated long enough for those differences to be that profound.

However, on the individual level - if you think everyone is created equal, you are either blind or just insane as everyone is clearly not equal.

For instance Stephan hawking is superior to me in mental department(his mastery of physics is beyond most) yet but inferior to me physically(because of his physical ailment).

However, in evolutionary terms, most people are superior to Stephen hawking because most will have better chance of reproductive success.

Its not one particular trait but there are certain combinations of traits that are more "desirable" or "superior" within our own society. That much is undeniable. However, these traits are not attributed to any race or ethniticity and can only be distinguished on the individual level.

I don't claim to have superior traits or anything but from a purely scientific perspective, it is foolish to believe in ToE in other species but say it doesn't continue in our own.

I realize that many of your argument are from a moral/ethical or "each person's intrinsic worth" standpoints.

But you have to realize from a scientific standpoint, these things are basically BS and hold no standing. Pure science is amoral and does not care for your morality, ethics, or this "intrinsic worth" measure that we as humans have made up. Basically such things do not exist in nature.