Re:New approaches shed light on the magnitude of sex differe...
by naasking on Monday December 23, 2019 @10:59AM
(#21864440)
> No one is studying genetics and heritibility of traits using race. It's an outdated model that is broken. We look directly at genes now.
Who's disputing this? Certainly that doesn't contradict any claim I've made.
> And then can't provide any categories constructed by society.
All of them are constructed by the society of scientists, who are also members of a larger society. That was the whole purpose of pointing out that classification of "species" is arbitrary.
Yes, biologists are interested in biological justifications for classifying species, but again no such classification process is complete because species does not form a natural kind. Frankly, all of your arguments on this amount to a red herring because I've never disputed any of what you're saying, besides the fact that classification of anything beyond the fundamental ontology defined by physics is arbitrary. The point of contrasting these two was never to say that race was equally arbitrary in biology, but that all such classifications beyond the fundamentals are arbitrary, period, and so the common argument of dismissing "race" as socially constructed and arbitrary is not an argument against its use. It would only be an argument against its use in some domains in which there are better metrics, all else being equal.
> The methodology does not involve society deciding what is and is not a species. Just because a scientific methodology has exceptions to when it is useful does not prove that it is not rigorous or not based in biology.
"Based in biology" is itself an arbitrary metric to which you're ascribing meaning. It's useful and more precise for biological purposes, but that's entirely besides the point, because 'biological purposes' is itself arbitrary. What distinguishes it from chemistry or physics? Don't you see that these are all merely useful but fairly arbitrary classifications of varying coarseness, each of which carries their own utility in a strictly limited domain?
Studying causal influence of genes is conceptually no different than asking people to classify their own race and measuring their responses to various life experiences of racism, or even correlating race and IQ. These are all metrics of varying precision, predictive power and cost. I'm concerned with the scientific process as a whole, not biology specifically, so I believe you misinterpreted the point I was making.
> So what? Correlation is not causation.
Sure, and I never claimed otherwise. Race is a far less precise and less useful classification than genetic populations for biological purposes. These aren't our only purposes in the pursuit of truth.
My purpose in pointing out the arbitrariness of species as a class is that we should not be trying to stymie scientific exploration for political motives. Contra your claim, some scientists do have an interest in studying race (though certainly biologists have less interest), and the reasons could very well be have scientific merit, but that's irrelevant in today's political climate. Research whose data counters the prevailing narratives of the day are harshly criticized, and its scientists sometimes even punished.
Who's disputing this? Certainly that doesn't contradict any claim I've made.
> And then can't provide any categories constructed by society.
All of them are constructed by the society of scientists, who are also members of a larger society. That was the whole purpose of pointing out that classification of "species" is arbitrary.
Yes, biologists are interested in biological justifications for classifying species, but again no such classification process is complete because species does not form a natural kind. Frankly, all of your arguments on this amount to a red herring because I've never disputed any of what you're saying, besides the fact that classification of anything beyond the fundamental ontology defined by physics is arbitrary. The point of contrasting these two was never to say that race was equally arbitrary in biology, but that all such classifications beyond the fundamentals are arbitrary, period, and so the common argument of dismissing "race" as socially constructed and arbitrary is not an argument against its use. It would only be an argument against its use in some domains in which there are better metrics, all else being equal.
> The methodology does not involve society deciding what is and is not a species. Just because a scientific methodology has exceptions to when it is useful does not prove that it is not rigorous or not based in biology.
"Based in biology" is itself an arbitrary metric to which you're ascribing meaning. It's useful and more precise for biological purposes, but that's entirely besides the point, because 'biological purposes' is itself arbitrary. What distinguishes it from chemistry or physics? Don't you see that these are all merely useful but fairly arbitrary classifications of varying coarseness, each of which carries their own utility in a strictly limited domain?
Studying causal influence of genes is conceptually no different than asking people to classify their own race and measuring their responses to various life experiences of racism, or even correlating race and IQ. These are all metrics of varying precision, predictive power and cost. I'm concerned with the scientific process as a whole, not biology specifically, so I believe you misinterpreted the point I was making.
> So what? Correlation is not causation.
Sure, and I never claimed otherwise. Race is a far less precise and less useful classification than genetic populations for biological purposes. These aren't our only purposes in the pursuit of truth.
My purpose in pointing out the arbitrariness of species as a class is that we should not be trying to stymie scientific exploration for political motives. Contra your claim, some scientists do have an interest in studying race (though certainly biologists have less interest), and the reasons could very well be have scientific merit, but that's irrelevant in today's political climate. Research whose data counters the prevailing narratives of the day are harshly criticized, and its scientists sometimes even punished.