Nevertheless, the belief that human races exist remains unquestionably real
Intra-racial Races
Started by
Korhend
, Sep 22 2004 09:03 PM
60 replies to this topic
#31
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:02 PM
Your right. You cant prove a scientific classification. Because its a creation of science. By your logic we should not devide tigers into subspecies. In fact, we should not devide things into species, class, phyllum or Kingdom, because you cannot prove it. Also from Wordiq.com
#32
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:05 PM
You CAN prove it. The DNA is different. You don't have that for humans. And I already said that site was wrong.
#33
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:06 PM
so you deny that science can consider a bengal tiger and an Indo-china tiger as being of different sub-species?
#34
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:14 PM
I'm not familiar with the example. If there's genome variation, they can, if not, they can't, and probably no longer do.
#35
Guest_Loki Tsin Dante_*
Guest_Loki Tsin Dante_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:18 PM
I may be in error here. . . but if humans all have the same genome, shouldn't we all look the same?
#36
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:22 PM
There is no genome difference between a South China Tiger and a Bengal Tiger. Thats to make them different species not different subspecies. By definition a subspecies just needs to be reasonably determinable Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones. Or in a human skin tone, bone and tooth structure.
#37
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:23 PM
If there's no genome difference it doesn't count. As I've said, Breed, not race or subspecies, is the appropriate term, because the differences are superficial, but that sounds nasty for humans. As such, a new word for it in humans should exist, but "race" already HAS a meaning, and it's not that.
#38
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:25 PM
Race MEANS subspecies in science though.
#39
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:28 PM
No, it doesn't. Race means race. Subspecies means Subspecies. Breed means Breed. We need a new word.
Example of a Subspecies, by the way: Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Example of a Subspecies, by the way: Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
#40
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:35 PM
by your logic Racists need a new word because Race already means a competition of speed.
#41
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:39 PM
Why should I care what they use? Their entire philosophy is based on the principles I just spent too page contesting!
#42
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:40 PM
Common usage doesn't make it true.
When it comes to the definition of a word, yes, it does. If everyone says that "deoderant" is a substance applied to the underarms to prevent body odor, but you think it's a writing instrument, that doesn't make you right. In the case of definitions of words, majority rules. Unless, of course, you can prove that the word is a misnomer or uniformly used differently by a specific group of people. You've failed to do either.
#43
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:53 PM
No, I haven't. Read the posts- if we consider race a legitimate term, it has to deal with it's other meanings, and with the minority of people, and majority of people versed in the subject.
#44
Korhend
-
- Members
-
- 2,213 posts
The world is a better place with Pickelhaubens!
Posted 25 September 2004 - 08:58 PM
Your missing my point, words can have two meanings. In fact most words have several meanings.
#45
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:26 PM
That's true, but two of the current meetings of "race" (One being synonemous to species, the other to breed) are close enough to lead to remisconception- one of them need to be changed, and the breed-synonym, it's very creation being rooted in that misconcept, should be the one that has to go.
#46
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:31 PM
You mean the one that everyone except the tiny minority of people, even those in the field which coined the term in the first place, take to be the definition?
#47
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:32 PM
I already covered that. Don't make me repeat myself.even those in the field which coined the term in the first place
#49
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:47 PM
I did. Biology textbooks use the same definition I do, as does Carl Sagan who, howevermuch you may disagree with him on theological issues, I think is fairly well recognised as having kknow what he was talking about in science.
#50
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 09:52 PM
One biology textbook, and one figure do not match the authority carried by every dictionary ever.
#51
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:02 PM
You didn't cite "every dictionary ever," and yes, if we're discussing biology, the opinion of an expert in the subject does, in fact, carry more clout than hordes of linguists. Also, I didn't say he was the only one- he's one I know we've all heard of. I've got more, but I don't see the point in listing them all.
#52
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:04 PM
Actually, I'd never heard of him, but that's not the point. If there was an official biology definition of the word "race," it would have been put in a dictionary by now.
#53
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:04 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 25 2004, 09:40 PM
When it comes to the definition of a word, yes, it does. If everyone says that "deoderant" is a substance applied to the underarms to prevent body odor, but you think it's a writing instrument, that doesn't make you right. In the case of definitions of words, majority rules. Unless, of course, you can prove that the word is a misnomer or uniformly used differently by a specific group of people. You've failed to do either.
No. In the novel/play Peter Pan, every single character referred to an object we know as a thimble and called it a kiss. Because all the characters and writer seemed to uniformly agree on this definition, it doesn't make a thimble into a kiss.
In real life, if an entire city labels a log as "a rock" they are not correct because they all agree on the usage of the word. In fact, the city will probably go on record as the most misguided city in the world. Let me use another, more tangible example.
In the thirties and forties, people had many different nicknames for people. Girls were often referred to as peaches, or tomatoes, or pies. Any guy would agree with this term in that time frame, but that doesn't mean that the females walking around were actually fruits or pastries. Its an incorrect use of the word, or a use of slang.
Majority doesn't rule, when it comes to terminology. It comes down to the correct meaning of the word in the proper circles, much like the use of theory with scientists, and the use of the word theory with common folk. You argued that using the word "theory" to describe evolution was misleading the public, because to them a theory is an idea, but to the scientific community a theory is truth.
The common folk represent a larger group than the scientific community. So, shall we go back to that thread and have you concede your arguement about theory being an accepted truth?
#54
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:10 PM
Ok, there's a difference between what I did in that thread, and what Alak is doing now.
From dictionary.com
Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the defition that I advocated as the scientific definition of theory.
Race:
5. Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
Here, there is a definition marked as the Biology use of the term, and it contradicts what Alak is saying the Biological term is.
The dictionary, which I think we can agree to be an authority on the meaning of words, helps my case and hurts Alak's. Other than that, the scenario is exactly the same.
From dictionary.com
Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the defition that I advocated as the scientific definition of theory.
Race:
5. Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
Here, there is a definition marked as the Biology use of the term, and it contradicts what Alak is saying the Biological term is.
The dictionary, which I think we can agree to be an authority on the meaning of words, helps my case and hurts Alak's. Other than that, the scenario is exactly the same.
#55
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:16 PM
I'm pointing out that if you're talking about the majority being right, then the majority thinks a theory is an idea, and not fact.
Therefore you can't say the scientific community is tricking people, because they would be using the wrong definition, because it isn't the majorities definition.
My intent was to point out that saying "The majority rules" when it comes to semantics is a very flawed idea.
I thought that was clear...
EDIT:
Look, the majority thinks a theory is a basic idea.
The scientific community knows it to be fact. Something that can be tested.
You're trusting the scientific communities definition on a theory. Why not trust Carl Sagan on the use of "race"?
Therefore you can't say the scientific community is tricking people, because they would be using the wrong definition, because it isn't the majorities definition.
My intent was to point out that saying "The majority rules" when it comes to semantics is a very flawed idea.
I thought that was clear...
EDIT:
Look, the majority thinks a theory is a basic idea.
The scientific community knows it to be fact. Something that can be tested.
You're trusting the scientific communities definition on a theory. Why not trust Carl Sagan on the use of "race"?
#56
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:22 PM
I trust the scientific community on definitions of scientific terms. I don't trust Carl Sagan,because Carl Sagan is apparently a dissenter among the scientific community. This isn't a situation where the vast majority of scientists agree on using a word in a different way than the rest of us.
Well, that, and I've never heard of the guy before.
Well, that, and I've never heard of the guy before.
#57
GraniteJJ
-
- Members
-
- 807 posts
King of Scarcity
- Location:The Great White North
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:24 PM
Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 25 2004, 11:22 PM
I trust the scientific community on definitions of scientific terms. I don't trust Carl Sagan,because Carl Sagan is apparently a dissenter among the scientific community. This isn't a situation where the vast majority of scientists agree on using a word in a different way than the rest of us.
Well, that, and I've never heard of the guy before.
He's an authority in the scientific community...he's a dissenter in the religious community. Religious and scientific communities don't encompass eachother...in any way whatsoever.
#58
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:24 PM
He's certinaly a dissenter on the definition of race.
#59
Alakhriveion
-
- Members
-
- 4,718 posts
Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki
- Location:Connecticut
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:25 PM
WAS an authority...
#60
SteveT
-
- Members
-
- 5,060 posts
100% a Dick
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 September 2004 - 10:25 PM
The plot thickens...
