Other than these, race can be scientifically determined, though.sabro said:As a science, racial theory seems to me a lot like divination, astrology, palmistry or most like phrenology.
That would be racism. You have to differentiate race as a biological concept & race as a sociological concept. Sociological differentiation in races doesn't make much sense, IMO.I think it has more to do with our limited tribal instinct than with empirical science
Sociology? Sorry, I only argue from a biological basis. Sociology is too much interwoven with psychology, too wide open to interpretation, not enough facts & too much philosophy.How is race a scientific concept? What is it about? Maybe some history? It wasn't ever developed by biologists, was it? In what branch of science does it belong? (I keep leaning toward sociology- where they study the development and application of race usually as it applies to racism in society.)
Since you already looked at Wikipedia, I suppose, I don't need to answer this one thoroughly. Just one thing: When I looked at the English version I had to notice that they seem to focus the entire article on the human subdivision into races. While the German version actually (although being rather PC as well) explains it as it is:
"Taxonomic Mayr (1969) : "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
Population Dobzhansky (1970) : "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves.""
(This is copied from the English version, but although they quote it, they don't apply it beyond humans).
Sorry, maybe I'm too tired, I don't really get your point in this paragraph.Can't we use the similarity between humans and chimps
Yes, I think, you misunderstand. Breed (for my limited understanding of English) is usually restricted to usage related to domesticated animals. Unless you find some occasions where slaves were actually bred by their slaveholders or consider the rather idiotic (& short-lived) attempt of the Nazis to produce a blonde super race you won't find human breeds.Perhaps I misunderstand: Are humans actually different breeds?
Actually, in intelligence & temperament there are statistical differences, but they are marginal & therefore negligible, AFAIK.The implication for humanity if we are indeed different breeds is that there may be racial differences in intelligence, character, and temperment
That's where you're mistaken. Differences as described above are only statistical, they don't constitute a reason for any collectivist social differentiation. As you already said somewhere else, variation inside a race is great.and that some races are more suitable to certain types of work than others.
Yes, breeds are races of domesticated (bred) animals.So are races equivalent to breeds?
Variety is used for plants only, the taxonomy is ...- species - subspecies - variety - ..., for animals (incl. humans) it is ...- species - subspecies - race -... . There are other approaches which equate subspecies & race (although that makes the inclusion of eg. Neanderthals a bit harder, IMO).That is why I used variety initially, thinking it was the equivalent term for sub species,
They do, only nowadays it has become un-PC to use the term race. Even Cavalli-Sforza tends to avoid it, instead he uses population & cline. Simply a difference in terminology, not really in concept.just that I don't believe biologist divide any species into "races."
It has predictive value, but only on a statistical basis. Eg. can be said that there is a greater probability for mongoloids than for caucasoids to be unable to digest milk products.Or does it have some predictive value?
That is the popular (more popular in the US than in Europe, I think) concept of science. But as the name says, science strives for gaining knowledge. Applying that knowledge is not necessarily business of scientists.I thought the point of science was at some level application
Yep!do they all have differences that are not race based that are far more important?
Wrong, what you described was the racist approach, just going for outer appearance. Race is a differentiation of human populations according to combination of physical characteristics. Outer appearance being only a minor part (I think, I said that before. Please don't try to push me into the corner of those who only see the outside). EG. bone build, protein production have greater significance.Then you have made my point. There is no real scientific basis for race.
Important? What for?I think it is probably more important to look at language and culture than "race."
There may have been only 2000 human beings some 60,000 years ago. It's rather easy to get separated from the rest of the world - say - if you are a tribe of maybe 40 people & follow a new path into the North.Haven't most human populations been in nearly constant states of contact and migration? With rare exceptions- aren't most human populations in historically frequent contact with others through trade, travel, warfare, and migration?
Most isolated? Anyway, if you are a rather small inbreeding population, 5000 years may be enough.Isn't the most isolated population of humans separated by less than (I guess) about 10,000 or 20,000 years?
IMO, the US administrative system has not much in common with a scientific definition of race. It's simply a sociological classification for bureaucratic convenience.We do keep stats in the US based upon race. (Most of which is self selected.) In this way we can look for patterns, or trends- especially those that betray some kind of racially based discrimination.
Will come back later with that & the rest of my post.Lastly do you have a reference for Cavalli-Sforza?