Human races are real according to evolution

"The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race. Weak racial naturalism
is wrong on semantic grounds." (Hochman, 2014)

So called "race realism" today is race denialism. It's proponents have weakened their position entirely that "race realism" is actually anti-realism.

http://www.academia.edu/7667337/Unn...ND_PHILOSOPHY_OF_SCIENCE_PART_C_2014_46_79-87

I mean Mikemikev is only arguing "race" is a concept with predictive power. This is not a natural or extra-mental (real) argument for race at all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's fine if you want to define real that way. I haven't changed my position at all and would dispute anyone has. Looks like a strawman. Can you define "Strong racial naturalism"?

This is meaningless nonsense.

EDIT: Looking up Hochman and also reading Sesardic's critique it appears Hochman didn't define race realism as "extra mental" at all, which is understandable since that is just insane and nobody except mentally ill Internet trolls would suggest such an idea. "Strong racial naturalism" for him is the idea that race concepts capture all variation and are 100% informative, a strawman.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The OP is you. The exact same Mayr quote you have spammed around on forums for years:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_realism/Archive1#The_reality_of_race
http://www.religionforums.org/Thread-Can-the-bible-reconcile-the-reality-of-race

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LMAO. These are Atlantid too. He must be very butthurt. Note how my long term accounts never make these lame authority arguments.

 

BTW thanks I have a new section
https://right.orain.org/wiki/Argume...retation.22_or_perfect_informativity_strawman

 

No, dummy.

- Spencer, 2011

Yes, because I'm living in South Korea. LOL. Seriously get medical help. The reason I requested IP checks is because you create accounts of yourself and other people then join forums blaming them onto innocent people. The first link had you IP checked and blocked from Korea. I noticed EgalitarianJay did the same at MootSF when you were impersonating a female called "Jenny".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikemikev1

 

Yes Atlantid. Race defined by genetic similarity is objective and informative and not based on subjective criteria anymore than grouping viruses.

 

Then scrap the "extra-mental" and go through the other definitions of a natural (real) kind/category. None of them still fit your concept of race that is far too arbitrary to be applied to science. What Hochman (2014) is saying is true: race naturalism (race realism) is now unnaturalism (anti-realism) because proponents of race have weakened what race means. It used to be argued that races were essentialist and/or discrete, (at least sharply discontinuous). Sesardic is arguing that races are arbitrary, overlap etc. This is clearly a "weak" form of race realism, which in fact as Hochman points out does not contrast with anti-realist or race denialism. Hochman doesn't regard Sesardic's race realism to be really real. It is not my problem a bunch of dumbasses from Metapedia don't understand this. Kimmo Alm doesn't get it either.

 

Assuming that's the case about Sesardic (which it probably isn't) I am not arguing that races overlap or are arbitrary.

Race defined by ancestry inferred from local and global maxima in genetic similarity is not arbitrary and doesn't overlap. Race was always defined by ancestry and you are attacking a strawman.

 

A Realist Metaphysics of Race, Jeremy Pierce

So my definition is a natural kind, and further Pierce is wrong that the classification has little phenotypic significance. And if it has any phenotypic significance it's not only informative for DNA, valid and a natural kind, but informative for genetically based phenotypic variation.

 

Mostly agree, but I would say there are natural kinds or objective "real" categories, alongside social or arbitrary mental constructs. For example while there is an ongoing species realism vs. anti-realism debate in biology and philosophy, there is little race realism vs. anti-realism debate. The debate on race is now confined to philosophy, and only a very small number of academics debate this. There is no debate about race (like species) in biology. The overwhelming consensus is they don't exist. In fact there are probably more creationist biologists than "race realist" biologists. Rushton, Lynn and so on are/were not biologists. This "race realism" debate thing is confined to the net, and of course none of its proponents have credentials in the bio-anthropology field. They're mostly just WN's from Stormfront.

 

So you're reduced to (false) authority claims. Thanks for playing.

 

All dealt with by Hochman. Note how this "genetic cluster" criteria for race is never applied to non-humans. As Hochman asks: why does the concept of race suddenly change when applied to humans? The answer is human races fail[ed] to pass the standard zoological/subspecies threshold or criteria (EgalitarianJay has already pointed this out). How are races being defined by similarity when on average an individual is 99.9% identical in genotype to another? You now shift overall genotype, to some tiny fraction of the genome. Again, this criteria is never applied to non-humans...

 

You and Hochman are completely wrong and genetic similarity is the current sine qua non of phylogeny. This misrepresentation of basic biology is laughable.

The "99.9%" argument is just pathetic. I won't even bother to address it.

Also https://right.orain.org/wiki/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races#Ontological_status

*Ignore*

 

The geographical structure or patterning on average is 0.01% of the complete genome (which correlates with mean craniometric variation between populations, e.g. see Relethford's recent studies). No one denies this interregional variation exists, but you have yet to explain what it has to do with "race"; this is where you fail everytime.

Your concept of race bares no resemblance to what race (i.e. subspecies) actually means.

 

Btw, you were moderated on Stormfront, lol. Your posts don't now appear automatically. This is because a Mod saw your face and questioned your ancestry. Your appearance also explains why you stay well clear of craniometry and only obsess over genes (which you cannot see).

You claim you are a “Caucasoid” genetically, but in phenotype there is nothing remotely Caucasoid about you, at least not in your skull profile. You have one of the widest noses I’ve ever seen for someone who identifies as Caucasoid or White, as well as prognathism. Its quite laughable, and your ‘Negroid’ traits basically have most people (even including your white supremacist sites) question your ancestry.

 

"In the nasal region, Caucasoids possess a rather
large and sharp nasal sill (Bass 1995:88).
EI-Najjar and McWilliams (1978:74)
describe the Caucasoid nasal root
depression as well-marked, and mention
that the "...superior ends of the nasal

bones often seem to disappear beneath
an overhanging projection at glabella".
Gill (1986:148-149) refers to the

Caucasoid nose as narrow with a long,

straight nasal spine and large nasal

bones."

You can go through 10+ more "Caucasoid" craniometric means you are a total outlier or don't come close.

 

This is sciforums.com. I'm not sure if there's a babblingmentalcaseforums.com.

 

What these race deniers do is cycle through these fallacies
https://right.orain.org/wiki/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races
in an endless loop and when you stop responding they claim "you can't address the point".
Oh look I addressed "99.9%" (one of the stupidest arguments) in the article.

 

Nope, not going to go to a Stormfront "wiki" in order to find a sound argument.