Why do some people still believe in racial science?

[nihilistic]

a/b) Ok, I´ll try. None of my Profs ever used Tabula Rasa as a foundation for analysis and I would not do so as well. Tabula Rasa, while certainly being proposed by some sociologists, can not be considered mainstram (anymore!). "Classic" social research did refer to this term until the ~70s but it was shown to provide rather inaccurate results, especially when applied to cultural and symbolic phenomena. Current (european, I don´t really know how it´s in the US, for example) theories do try to implement the factors you mentioned by taking predispositional factors into account. Norbert Elias, in his book "The Civilizing Process", is a very good example for an interdisciplinary approach, which is sometimes called "sociogenetic" and there he tries to include psychological and biological predispositions into his procedural sociology. The problem which arises of course is the problem of quantification. How do we include biological/genetic predispositions into a good calculation of how likely this person will be jobless for a long time or live in a suburb? This, for example, is one of the fields where a lot of theory building and -verification is taking place currently. I can´t really answer your question, though, because it aimed at Tabula Rasa being a centerpiece of sociology, which it, IMHO, isn´t. But I honestly can´t think of any findings from the fields of psychology, biology or genetics that openly contradict sociological theory at the moment.

Hmm ... so I was several decades off in my critism. Sorry about that. But if you would indulge me I could probably explain where my apparent wrongful assessment came from: Whenever I read something about sociology (granted that I do not actually real journals on current sociology research), it always seems to present the picture of tabula rasa, of the human mind as a blank sheet of white paper colored onto only by society. Granted that the mainstream coverage of all sciences are pathetic, but at least most other sciences actually make some noise. Biologists are currently the loudest because the effrontery (creationism) against them is by far the biggest and most strident. Astrophysicists would debunk astrologers. Pharmacologists have their arch-enemy in homeopaths. Mathematicians laugh at numerologists and sigh at gamblers. I could be very wrong about this, but I ask what efforts have sociologists made at debunking misconceptions about the results of their pursuits?

 

[Trajan12]

The problem isn't that people believe there's differences, the problem is that so many people believe these differences matter a thousand times more than they actually do.

^Everybody, shut up and read this post. It's the most correct answer to this thread so far.

At any rate, it isn't about whether you recognize the differences, it's about whether or not you can discern a scientific difference from a non-scientifically founded difference. And whether you recognize what their implications are and aren't.

I think the bulk of many people's opposition to recognizing any racial differences rests on their worry that some ne'er-do-well will take it as a window of opportunity to spread unfounded claims and blow things out of proportion. Considering how the average person has shown themselves unable to competently comprehend race, I think that fear is totally and completely founded.

 

[Thorbal]

Hmm ... so I was several decades off in my critism. Sorry about that. But if you would indulge me I could probably explain where my apparent wrongful assessment came from: Whenever I read something about sociology (granted that I do not actually real journals on current sociology research), it always seems to present the picture of tabula rasa, of the human mind as a blank sheet of white paper colored onto only by society. Granted that the mainstream coverage of all sciences are pathetic, but at least most other sciences actually make some noise. Biologists are currently the loudest because the effrontery (creationism) against them is by far the biggest and most strident. Astrophysicists would debunk astrologers. Pharmacologists have their arch-enemy in homeopaths. Mathematicians laugh at numerologists and sigh at gamblers. I could be very wrong about this, but I ask what efforts have sociologists made at debunking misconceptions about the results of their pursuits?

No need to apologize at all .
Yeah, I have noticed that as well. The more widely-received articles are very *very* odd most of the time. Nearly as bad as all these "pyschological" articles in the average magazines.
I guess there are multiple reasons for that. One of it being that sociology can´t produce all these cool thingies that other disciplines do - like giant hadron colliders or spaceships. Most of the stuff published (in the peer-reviewed magazines) is composed of graphs and statistics which isn´t really good for PR, without blinking lights or noises and it´s not readily apparent what all that stuff is good for . But this is of course the situation of other disciplines as well. And sociologists seem to be (ironically) not very good at communicating their results.
I guess I can´t really answer your question . That would require a very deep sociological analysis .

 

[Thorbal]

Edit: and a lot of sociologists are openly opposed to the idea of spreading their results, because they think that it could skew further analysis. Because - for example - when people know why a certain question is asked in an interview situation, they (mostly) want to please the interviewer by answering what they think he would like to hear most, so they like to keep their methods secret.

edit: arrrrrgh, double post again...

 

[Atticus]

We typically define race as another term for subspecies - a subspecies in biology is defined to have subspecies if it has an X% level of genetic variation between populations. (And a subspecies will crossbreed.) If the population variation is lower than that, then there are no separate subspecies and variation must be studied at the population level. So then you'd have to use population instead when one wants to study genetic variation within the human species.

That value is 0.25-0.30. Humans have a value of 0.06-0.1. Not enough to create a taxonomic category of race, bt enough to take into account what population one is from, but that would mean that the classification of "races" that are far from orthodox, as you're dealing with continuous variation.

Well, if someone wants to study different kinds of humans, it is reasonable to adopt different standards than in biology: that is the word "race" would have different meaning when applied to humans.

I think that it's in principle reasonable to study these different races (or "races"), and I don't see any reason to suppose that differences between them would be impossible. In practice however why research it when it can only lead to misusage. What positive use would such investigations have? In addition to that the differences would be very small, it should be considered how much of these small differences should influence people's decisions: would it be reasonable to not hire a guy, because his race has on average 3 points lower IQ than the other? Or should school funding be different because someone proved such differences? I don't think any sane person could answer "yes" to these. Individuals should not be treated according to statistics, so even if this kind of differences were shown, they shouldn't have any impact on society.

The reason I bothered to post to this thread (not this post) at all was that I on the other hand don't see LesCanadiens' approach very smart either: to dogmatically claim that it is impossible that human races (or "races") have any differences is lazy man's way, if people are satisfied with that they are in trouble when someone refutes their refutal.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmm ... so I was several decades off in my critism. Sorry about that. But if you would indulge me I could probably explain where my apparent wrongful assessment came from: Whenever I read something about sociology (granted that I do not actually real journals on current sociology research), it always seems to present the picture of tabula rasa, of the human mind as a blank sheet of white paper colored onto only by society. Granted that the mainstream coverage of all sciences are pathetic, but at least most other sciences actually make some noise. Biologists are currently the loudest because the effrontery (creationism) against them is by far the biggest and most strident. Astrophysicists would debunk astrologers. Pharmacologists have their arch-enemy in homeopaths. Mathematicians laugh at numerologists and sigh at gamblers. I could be very wrong about this, but I ask what efforts have sociologists made at debunking misconceptions about the results of their pursuits?

Couldn't it also be because sociologists look at differences caused by differences in societies? It's not that the mind is a blank slate, but that the discipline is looking for differences that cannot distinguish a 'blank slate' from a 'non blank slate'?

 

[Godwynn]

I've heard some where that lactose(spelling?) intolerance is more common in black people due to a genetic difference, which was created in Siberia/Northern Europe? The genetic difference made people able to drink cow milk so they could better survive in harsh conditions.

I have read that before, that only "white" people are not lactose-intolerant into adulthood.

Meh, I enjoy milk.

 

[Murky]

I have read that before, that only "white" people are not lactose-intolerant into adulthood.

Meh, I enjoy milk.

Milk is part of human culture and has been for centuries. When you get down the gritty details of dairy farming, it is somewhat cruel to animals and gross.

 

[nihilistic]

Couldn't it also be because sociologists look at differences caused by differences in societies? It's not that the mind is a blank slate, but that the discipline is looking for differences that cannot distinguish a 'blank slate' from a 'non blank slate'?

But no matter what you do you still have to make fundamental assumptions somewhere. In all sciences (except physics) the fundamental assumptions of one science is verified in another more fundamental one. For example, biology being applied chemistry and chemistry being applied physics. Physics is different because it is the most fundamental one. Its assumptions are the assumptions of mathematics and that of the fundamental regularity of space and time. See this cartoon.

The problem with the blank slate is that it is often taken as true in lay sociology in such a way that it becomes the major driving force behind much misguided governmental policy. For example, the percentage of women in the fields of science, engineering, and math has always prompted feminists to claim discrimination of one form or another. Such barriers probably do exist to some point, but the recent call for Title 9 laws (50% rules) to be enforced on academia on science and engineering is completely based on the erroneous notion of tabula rasa. Women in general do prefer the more social pursuits more than men.

 

[holy king]

Well, if someone wants to study different kinds of humans, it is reasonable to adopt different standards than in biology: that is the word "race" would have different meaning when applied to humans.

this does soooo not make sense...

 

[Atticus]

holy king: why so?

Such barriers probably do exist to some point, but the recent call for Title 9 laws (50% rules) to be enforced on academia on science and engineering is completely based on the erroneous notion of tabula rasa. Women in general do prefer the more social pursuits more than men.

Isn't it possible that this preferance is caused by society?

 

[holy king]

why would different standards apply to studying human biology than when studying biology in general?

 

[Atticus]

1. It was "if someone wants to study different kinds of humans...", since the variations within humans are smaller, the divide would be too rough otherwise.

2. The word "race" when applied to humans doesn't (wouldn't) mean same thing that it does when applied to animals.

3. Humans are more interested in humans than in other animals: different standards are applied to researching animal and human psychology for instance.

4. It wouldn't be study of biology in general, but study of different kinds of humans.

 

[holy king]

there's a perfectly good word in biology: "variety".
"race" is a biological term that cannot biologically be applied to different variations of humans, since humans are too close.
"race" is a term that comes with a big burden of negativity.

so why is it a good idea to apply it to humans?

 

[Atticus]

"race" is a term that comes with a big burden of negativity.

I don't see it with negative burden, and I don't believe people in general do. I might be wrong on this though.

 

[holy king]

I don't see it with negative burden, and I don't believe people in general do. I might be wrong on this though.

try catching up with some history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

 

[Atticus]

Why should I draw the conclusion that the word "race" has negative burden? Should I maybe think that word "protestant" has negative burden because so many people were killed after reformation?

 

[Thorbal]

Women in general do prefer the more social pursuits more than men.

Isn't it possible that this preferance is caused by society?

I´m not really up-to-date when it comes to biology, but as far as I know, the biological predisposition - if there is any - is certainly not a strong one. But if anyone knows it for sure, I´d be glad to hear!

Sociologically speaking, there is indeed a very strong correlation between gender and role. But the cause of this is, with a very high probability, not gender, but "culture". Although I have to admit, "very likely" is not 100% sure. Current research strongly hints at (mainly) cultural reasons at least.

 

[Communisto]

Whats wrong with the word race? Is it offensive? I like it, makes me feel like I live in Middle-Earth or something.

 

[caketastydelish]

Some people where calling a black baseball coach racist because he preffered to put black players on the field when it was hot. It was on CNN and everything. I don't see why they where calling this man racist. If darker pigments can handle the heat better, then thats science!

As long as people have science to prove there points, I don't care what they sya.