1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Oh sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough and created some confusion. I'm not sure whether you understood me so I'll try to explain it again.
Originally Posted by Dorianfinder
First of all I agree with Antigone and also believe that taking distance from other groups of people, dividing between 'them and us', also stereotyping, is a natural drive which exists in every human being. And it has a function, by tying together members of one's own group and thus strengthening the survival of it.
It does become a problem when sentiments created by this natural drive have an influence on science. Of course, every field of science can be distorted by emotional perceptions, not only racial classification. But in this field the risk of distorting reality is exceptionally high, as describing the group (nation, culture, ethnicity, race etc...) someone belongs to is about the same as describing oneself. So objectiveness is on the brink. But I believe that most 'race scientists' or amateurs are not aware of this. They create numbers and alleged facts out of sentiments, without knowing.
I think you understood that I was trying to explain how sentiments can be transfered to rational numbers, in order to make them understandable. Well, that would be scientific if someone at least tried to do this conscientiously. But that's not what most race researchers do. What they do is creating facts OUT OF sentiments, which is something completely different and unscientific!
And as Maciamo already said, categorizing things as such (not only human races) is also an inate drive people use in order to get along with reality, otherwise we wouldn't have any science. But I believe that most people who are obessed with classifying humans didn't take humans just by chance of any subject, but because they are on the search of their own identity and perhaps also of their own value, which of course everyone hopes to be higher than that of others. But people are not aware of this, so when confronted with this question the answer are rolling eyes. Or the reply doesn't fit the question. Most frequent example:
Q: "Why do you want to classify human races?"
A: "Science as proved that races do exist!"
(Well, it might be true, but that wasn't the answer to the question, or was it?)