pinkharrier wrote:If considering that race is real and identifiable and is, on this forum, racist in itself, how does one "defend" oneself?

Any link to a site, academic or otherwise, that takes "my" POV will be racist itself. Perhaps the "no race" side should start providing evidence for their POV that will disprove the obvious differences that the world observes.

Suggesting that people are motivated by raw racism (the underlying suggesting) is unfair and indefensible and is rather more serious that a suggestion of phoniness.

I have an aversion to running and telling. This is a robust forum and should attract robust members.

Fair enough, perhaps you'll be kind enough to pony up some robust evidence to support the very well done (rather than raw) assertion that race is real and indentifiable. That would be the only way to defend yourself.

If a claim is made, then it has to be backed up. That is a rule of the science subforum (whilst also being encouraged in the other areas of the forum). There is not currently a rule that states that believing in the concept of race is racist on ratskep - that was what Chad argued for, and all the moderators disagreed, as well as most/all of the members who read his proposal.

With that said, however, we do have rules against racism which means that suggesting the superiority or inferiority of a certain populations can result in a warning. Since we are in the science forum there is some leeway given here but when claims are made that are supposedly 'scientific', then these need to be backed up with peer reviewed research.

And reporting posts isn't about "snitching" - it's about making the job of the moderator easier, and helping us ensure that discussions aren't sidetracked by inane bickering and senseless derails.

So suggesting that sprinters with a W African heritage are biologically more likely to be superior to those from elsewhere is racist? Hmmmmm. What evidence does one need? Is this a case of truth is no defence against the charge of racism?

What evidence, specifically, would do? Specific being the word. Obviously the Guinness BoR won't do.

pinkharrier wrote:So suggesting that sprinters with a W African heritage are biologically more likely to be superior to those from elsewhere is racist? Hmmmmm. What evidence does one need? Is this a case of truth is no defence against the charge of racism?

What evidence, specifically, would do? Specific being the word. Obviously the Guinness BoR won't do.

Scientific evidence - so no, the Guinness BoR won't do. If you think that sprinters of W African heritage are biologically more likely to be superior athletes compared to those elsewhere, then cite the studies that provide evidence of some biological mechanism that makes them better sprinters. If you have no evidence, then either don't make the claim (as this is the science forum, not the opinion forum), or make a more reasonable claim such as "Based on uncontrolled data, like historical records from Olympic events, I believe that there is a biological difference in abilities of different populations". Remember that evidence =/= proof, so you don't need to "prove" that there is a difference, you just have to present empirical evidence that there is reason to think there is one.

This is the same standard that all claims in this subforum are held to.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Since this is the science forum, you need to back up these claims - for example, can you link to the peer-reviewed research that demonstrates this: "... it has been found that, on average, black children develop basic coordination & balance sooner than white children and black adults have more testosterone than white adults of the same sex." ?

For the one about sensorimotor development, one of the sources I got it from (I don't know how to track down the others) was about six sevenths of the way through a Stephen Jay Gould essay titled "Racism and Recapitulation", republished in his essay collection Ever Since Darwin on pages 214-221; he was referring to a study by H. Eysenck. The point of the essay was an argument against racism and racist misuse of scientific data, and he argued against Eysenck's inferences from the data about a negative correlation with IQ later in life, but did not dispute the data itself. At a glance while looking that up, I also noticed that he also said in the previous paragraph of the same essay: "adult blacks have long skulls, dark skins, strongly prognathus jaws... while adult whites and black babies have short skulls, light (or at least lighter) skins, and small, nonjutting jaws". The whole point of Gould's essays about biology and race was never to pretend that there aren't obvious differences between the races or to advocate denying them and stifling any mention of them, but only to argue against using them for racist purposes.

Here is an NCBI/PubMed article about testosterone levels in black & white men giving numbers for the differences (which Ross et alia found again in a separate study 6 years later, although I don't see that one online); here is one saying that the difference evens out above age 40 (which it couldn't do if it weren't real below that age in the first place). To depart a bit from the athletic issues, here's one showing a correlation between levels of hormones in the gonads and in the blood serum in obese black women but not in their white counterparts.

pinkharrier wrote:Perhaps the "no race" side should start providing evidence for their POV that will disprove the obvious differences that the world observes.

Evidently, the moderators think otherwise.

aspire1670 wrote:perhaps you'll be kind enough to pony up some robust evidence to support the very well done (rather than raw) assertion that race is real and indentifiable.

Ask Agrippina how (s)he did it. (Then ask the moderators why that was OK without a scientific citation.)

Mr.Samsa wrote:If a claim is made, then it has to be backed up.

...unless you're on the side that the moderators want to help out, not the one they want to stifle and get rid of. Then, not only is a lack of support for scientific assertions just fine (as shown by a lack of equivalent requests like I just responded to above), but so is arguing almost largely without even making specific scientific assertions in the first place but just by insults and accusations at The Enemy.

Mr.Samsa wrote:There is not currently a rule that states that believing in the concept of race is racist on ratskep

Officially/technically, maybe not, but it's just been demonstrated in the last few posts that one is clearly in effect. Funny how that works out. (Even funnier is that you then spoke against calling one race inferior and another superior, when the only direction of "superiority" that could seriously be said to have been discussed here is the opposite of the one you had in mind!)

Delvo wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:Perhaps the "no race" side should start providing evidence for their POV that will disprove the obvious differences that the world observes.

Evidently, the moderators think otherwise.

aspire1670 wrote:perhaps you'll be kind enough to pony up some robust evidence to support the very well done (rather than raw) assertion that race is real and indentifiable.

Mr.Samsa wrote:If a claim is made, then it has to be backed up.

...unless you're on the side that the moderators want to help out, not the one they want to stifle and get rid of. Then, not only is a lack of support for scientific assertions just fine (as shown by a lack of equivalent requests like I just responded to above), but so is arguing almost largely without even making specific scientific assertions in the first place but just by insults and accusations at The Enemy.

Mr.Samsa wrote:There is not currently a rule that states that believing in the concept of race is racist on ratskep

Officially/technically, maybe not, but it's just been demonstrated in the last few posts that one is clearly in effect. Funny how that works out...

I cannot read through every single post ever made on this forum. If you think someone has made a claim that they haven't backed up, then ask them for evidence, or simply report it and I will ask them for evidence. And no, there is no rule, official or unofficial, that claims that believing in the concept of race is racist and I have no idea how you reached that conclusion considering I simply asked you to back up your claims.

And to be honest with everyone, I'm starting to get a little frustrated with being accused of bias from both sides. Either stop firing accusations at me (and the other mods), especially when you have absolutely no idea of my views on the matter, or at the very least get together and have a little discussion where you can decide whether I am supporting the "racists" or the "non-racists" because I cannot be doing both.

Stick to the rules, stick to the topic, and back up your claims - no matter what "side" you're on.

Thanks.

Thank you Mr Samsa for your points.

Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

Added to that there are many occasions when one has an opinion that may be correct but lacks any current evidence to back it up. And it may be a long time coming. For example, was there a "before" the big bang or was there not? Topics like this shouldn't be stifled simply because one side is has more evidence than the other. DNA is an exceedingly complex molecule, bordering on the miraculous. To expect one side to provide evidence that goes, perhaps, beyond current knowledge and wisdom is unreasonable and reminds of the world's attitude to Kepler when he suggested that two bodies in space would be attracted to one another by virtue of their mass. This was long before Newton, let alone Einstein.

pinkharrier wrote:Thank you Mr Samsa for your points.

Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

Added to that there are many occasions when one has an opinion that may be correct but lacks any current evidence to back it up. And it may be a long time coming. For example, was there a "before" the big bang or was there not? Topics like this shouldn't be stifled simply because one side is has more evidence than the other. DNA is an exceedingly complex molecule, bordering on the miraculous. To expect one side to provide evidence that goes, perhaps, beyond current knowledge and wisdom is unreasonable and reminds of the world's attitude to Kepler when he suggested that two bodies in space would be attracted to one another by virtue of their mass. This was long before Newton, let alone Einstein.

There's no point in citing opinions, they simply get ignored.

And I am sorry that you have become involved in this spat. I wouldn't be a moderator for quids. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think your policy on racism may have good intentions but it encourages precious people to snitch. Not my idea to bring you in.

pinkharrier wrote:Thank you Mr Samsa for your points.

Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

Of course there is - if someone makes a claim such as "Populations of Red people and Green people score exactly the same on IQ tests" then they need to back this up. However, if anyone from either side presents an opinion on something like, "I think in the future we will all have the same skin pigmentation" then they don't need to back this up as it's just a thought experiment/opinion (although people might find it a bit of an odd comment to make without evidence or reason to think it might be true). And obviously there is no need to support a "claim" like, "I don't believe you".

Those pushing for a 'racial difference' position do need to be a little careful because of the racist bigotry rule, but realistically if you're making claims you think are based on science then you aren't going to be pushing for positions like "I think we should exterminate all the white people" or "Hitler had the right idea!" etc., so I don't see why you'd be punished for claiming something like "W Africans are, on average, better sprinters" even if you could never support it with evidence. If, on the other hand, you were to consistently make claims that certain races are less intelligent than others and that's why they commit more crime but fail to produce evidence of differences in intelligence scores and crime rates (and demonstrating that these differences are due to biological causes), then it will seem to be apparent that you are basing your opinions on racial prejudices instead of evidence.

The bottom line is: If you can't find evidence to support your position, then perhaps you need to reconsider why you hold that position. It is true that science is always developing and new evidence comes to light every day, which is why the racism rule is very relaxed in the science forum - however, we have to be careful not to give free reign to racists to push their agenda. Unfortunately this means that people honestly trying to look into the science of races sometimes get confused with racists, but the only way to avoid this is to present evidence.

pinkharrier wrote:And I am sorry that you have become involved in this spat. I wouldn't be a moderator for quids. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... Not my idea to bring you in.

Much appreciated

pinkharrier wrote:Thank you Mr Samsa for your points.

Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

No, you make the assertion you provide the evidence, you do have the evidence?

pinkharrier wrote:And I am sorry that you have become involved in this spat. I wouldn't be a moderator for quids. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think your policy on racism may have good intentions but it encourages precious people to snitch. Not my idea to bring you in.

The policy causes "precious" people (ad hom noted) to require that you produce some evidence to back up the assertion that race is real. No evidence and the assertion remains racist bigotry. So, no evidence then?

We are going around in circles. The differences exist. I didn't choose the 1972 100m Soviet sprinter. Someone else did and they were 100% accurate in their choice (to find a non African descended winner). All they needed (and you too) was a photo.

Would you prefer "ecotype" which appears to be identical in usage. Maybe it is just the R... word that you don't like.

A picture is worth a thousand words (hence Borzov's pic). Send me some proving there aren't any differences rather than disingenuous words. I know. One nose, two ears, a mouth, two eyes, etc. Heck there's no such concept as species at this rate.

No lions or tigers. No red or grey squirrels. Social constructs all. Sure.

pinkharrier wrote:Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

No. [ See here ]

Because 'race' is just a conglomeration of 4 letters that represent a word with an arbitrary meaning.

pinkharrier wrote:Added to that there are many occasions when one has an opinion that may be correct but lacks any current evidence to back it up.

But how would you know it is 'correct'?


And remember ....

pinkharrier wrote:DNA is an exceedingly complex molecule, bordering on the miraculous.

Nothing miraculous about it, once you have an understanding of what it is and how it works.

pinkharrier wrote:To expect one side to provide evidence that goes, perhaps, beyond current knowledge and wisdom is unreasonable

Yes, yes , I know ... it was silly of Newton to hide his alchemy result from the Royal Society. He should of just said to them, "I'm Sir Isaac Newton and my opinion on the potential for Lead to be turned into Gold is correct and beyond current knowledge and wisdom ... even though I have no evidence to back that arse-ertion up, I am correct!"

pinkharrier wrote:and reminds of the world's attitude to Kepler when he suggested that two bodies in space would be attracted to one another by virtue of their mass. This was long before Newton, let alone Einstein.

The problem with your analogy here, is that gravity exists, race doesn't.

pinkharrier wrote:One nose, two ears, a mouth, two eyes, etc. Heck there's no such concept as species at this rate.

No lions or tigers. No red or grey squirrels. Social constructs all. Sure.

Given how difficult it is to construct a valid definition of species, you're not far off. But the utility of "species" for science discussions is so great that we persist in trying to pin down the concept. And for each recognized species, we have a type specimen and we have an established list of key traits with boundaries which have been agreed upon through review of the scientific literature by the relevant experts.

Can you point to a similar utility for the concept of "races" in humans ?

Is there any reason to consider it anything other than a social construct ?

Circles again. You have a problem with race in squirrels?

pinkharrier wrote:Circles again. You have a problem with race in squirrels?

Is race in squirrels rigorously defined ? Do the relevant scientists have a type specimen and valid descriptions separating the key characteristics of each of the races they seek a name for ? Do their peers agree after suitable review ? Does this proposed separation into two or more different races of squirrels have the utility of furthering our understanding of the ecology ?

If so, then of course I don't have a problem with it.

If no, then it's not scientific.

pinkharrier wrote:Circles again. You have a problem with race in squirrels?

Do grey and red squirrels fuck?

Well, all that would prove is that they are as undiscriminating as most humans

Witticism wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:Is there any onus on the "no race" side to provide the same quality of evidence to back up their POV?

No. [ See here ]

Because 'race' is just a conglomeration of 4 letters that represent a word with an arbitrary meaning.

pinkharrier wrote:Added to that there are many occasions when one has an opinion that may be correct but lacks any current evidence to back it up.

But how would you know it is 'correct'?


And remember ....

pinkharrier wrote:DNA is an exceedingly complex molecule, bordering on the miraculous.

Nothing miraculous about it, once you have an understanding of what it is and how it works.

pinkharrier wrote:To expect one side to provide evidence that goes, perhaps, beyond current knowledge and wisdom is unreasonable

Yes, yes , I know ... it was silly of Newton to hide his alchemy result from the Royal Society. He should of just said to them, "I'm Sir Isaac Newton and my opinion on the potential for Lead to be turned into Gold is correct and beyond current knowledge and wisdom ... even though I have no evidence to back that arse-ertion up, I am correct!"

pinkharrier wrote:and reminds of the world's attitude to Kepler when he suggested that two bodies in space would be attracted to one another by virtue of their mass. This was long before Newton, let alone Einstein.

The problem with your analogy here, is that gravity exists, race doesn't.

Mr W, this is so good that it bears repeating.