Haven't seen any quotation marks. Anyway, not my words. I never said that race can be sorted by superficial appearance.sabro said:Statement like "Its quite obvious that you don't want to understand." are insulting, condescending and uncalled for. (Especially because it was in response to terms I quoted from YOUR previous post!)sabro said:if it is merely a sorting by superficial appearance.
What's more, that wasn't the 1st time that you brought up folk-taxonomy in order to discredit the scientific approach.
Well, sorry, but I'm a little annoyed by the fact that I have to constantly restate/reject the same stuff in different wording.I have never put myself forth as an expert in this area, I am constantly asking for clarification and reading the articles that are parsed in this thread. If nothing else I have tried to understand with increasing difficulty your point of view. I am offended by your tone.
Touché! Although your quote is not correct. I stated, "How many Persians are biologists?" I should have said, "How many Persians have enough knowledge in biology?"You also claim not to be an elitist, but the two times I brought up the fact that aboriginal Amazons and Persians would have a different taxonomy, you asked "How many of them are biologists."
You didn't say that A & P have a different taxonomy, you said that Persians wouldn't consider themselves caucasoid. But you didn't answer my question as to what they do consider themselves to be.
Wrong. There is no qualification necessary to discuss anything, but I doubt that 90+ % of Persians would have the necessary knowledge base to have an informed opinion. & you don't need to have a degree to be knowledgable, you don't even need one to be a scientist, IMO.I am not a biologist either, and by your snide statement I am entirely unqualified to discuss the taxonomy of a subspecies. (and you would be right, actually.)
Hmm, arrogant maybe, but ethnocentric? I'm pretty sure I'm egocentric.The tone of these statements to me seem not only elitist, but ethnocentric and arrogant.
Where did I say so?As for words having the same meaning for the sender and reciever, I'm quite surprised as a linguistics major you didn't recognize one of the basics of communications.
How well argued, only, this not really what your original argument was about:And Yes, if a scientist intends to communicate with a houswife, he must use terms she understands. For communication to occur, the sender and reciever must share a common language. The sender should be aware of what terms connote (and possibly denote) in the INTENDED reciever. (So if a scientists were writing to other scientists, he would choose differert terms.)
"For a term to have meaning it must have a shared denotation (and connotation) for both the sender and reciever. Race seems to be lacking in this parameter."
So, your above definition applied, race has meaning when 2 scientists (or perhaps even more restricted: biologists) talk to each other, but loses meaning when a scientist talks to a housewife? (Or do you mean it doesn't have any meaning at all because scientific & folk denotation/connotation don't match?)
Then Quantum Theory (or higher mathematics, or...) is meaningless because the common housewife (or houseman, if that word exists in English) most probably wouldn't understand a scientist talking about it?
Very funny. Just because I quoted it, doesn't mean that I agree with it. The whole Multiregional Evolution hypothesis is rather improbable.I pulled the terms "superficial appearence" from an article YOU cited. Multiregional Evolution hypothesis, in the last sentence of the last paragraph, so if you want to ridicule anyone it should be the expert you cited and not me.
Nope, maybe you missed the point that you reacted to "For significance, meaning & importance are always relative." & in my response I showed that significance, meaning & importance of all those concepts is relative.You also seem to have missed the entire point that we are talking about the validity, reliability and existentence of a concept, and so when I listed scientific concepts it was to illustrate the point that all of the concepts are significant, specific and important.
Neither does the concept of race. The terminology changes, the concept pretty much stays the same.Although we may re-translate these concepts into different languages, the core of the concept does not change.
Negative connotation? & you change anything by simply denying the underlying differences? Very PC!The "concept" of race, along with the old world terminology is saddled with so much negative connotation that intereferes with discussion that many or most scientists and scientific journals avoid its usage in favor of more accurate terminology that is devoid of such baggage.
More accurate? Since the denotation stays the same, how can it be more accurate?
Obviously they have, or else there wouldn't be some people in the PC faction trying to replace it with Ausbausprache/Abstandsprache/Dachsprache.(I doubt that the terms or concepts of language and dialect carry such baggage.)
It seems, many or most biologists disagree.Although its connotation in the discussion of human variation may find some valid basis, the denotation attached to its historical and popular usage render its continued application in the current field of biology not just politically incorrect, but an anachronism.
"Everything is relative" is a mere rhetorical expression where I live, which doesn't mean that actually everything is relative (although it probably is, in a different universe things may be completely different). But that's not what I said, anyway. I said (repeatedly, I think): "significance, meaning & importance are always relative." Significance, meaning & importance are not everything.The "la la" relativism statement- again I applologize for being vague. When you said everything is relative, it seemed like a cop out- that anything can mean anything to anyone at any given time...(la, la, la...)
Acc. to this, race is a valid concept. It can be measured (by physical taxonomy & DNA structure), the concept predicts certain taxonomic features & gene markers which can reliably found & validated.Materialism, that a thing can be known, measured, that a concept can be predictive, reliable and valid...
Zinger? Was new to me, interesting. Anyway, that is my preferred method, since people sometimes (try to) re-interpret my posts, this is the best way to show what I'm referring to when I write.You may feel the need to reply to this post by breaking it down into little blue boxes and following each with a one line zinger.