/sci/ - Science & Math

Race denial is based on social/moral reasons, not scientific ones(although this fact is often obscured). A natural chain of implications occur if you accept race exists.

I don't really think any honest thinker thinks that race doesn't exist. 'Races' certainly exist. But 'black', 'white', and 'yellow' aren't races. There is a lot more genetic variation between some African tribes than there is between either of those African tribes and any other population in the world. There are certainly differences in 'races', but it would be more apt to say there are differences in 'geographic populations', and these genetic differences give rise to the phenotypic differences we see.

The only race that doesn't exist is a master race.

>>5584142
But physicists do exist.

>>5584142

its impossible to never not make normative judgments in one way or others.

just posting in this thread required a stance on your part.

>>5584036
That is the primary problem. Once we say "race is a biological thing" eugenics begins to be widely accepted and you have neo-nazis and racists everywhere saying SEE! SEE! RACE IS REAL AND WHITES ARE THE BEST!!"

OP doesn't seem to have bad intentions, but the other 99% of the time I have seen people pushing this point was to justify that blacks are sub-humans.

>>5584179

we already use eugenics, babies are screened for disorders, women can selectively choose samples at a sperm bank, people naturally make decisions on who they gravitate towards. scientists on both sides of the atlantic had high hopes about finally eliminating chronic diseases and improving peoples quality of life, up until a certain dictator made it a politically incorrect topic of course.

honestly, 'eugenics' is something that can help everyone in any race or society, its demonization is a sad mischaracterization.

>>5584179
who cares
let them out themselves... i'm not the first to point this out, but the folks jumping on the race train would be prime candidates for sterilization under any rationally administered eugenics scheme

report rednecks

>>5584179
That's not really a problem. I mean, such people will vehemently spout such things whether there's research into it or not. Shit, even if theirs research directly opposing what they're saying, they'll still continue to spout it.

We can't halt scientific research and hide results just because a vocal few will take the results to fuel their own ingrained biases. I mean, this has been happening ever since science was a thing. Politicians with little knowledge of science use climate change to sway voters, whether it be by scare tactics or comforting through denial.

>>5584036

It goes beyond populations to paths of migration/evolution with divergence happening at certain points.

>>5584179

What if the research supports the viewpoint that race and intelligence are linked? No one argues a race is not human but it's certainly reasonable to say differences in intelligence, impulse control and other mental traits may exist between races and it warrants further research.

>>5584179

lets not kid ourselves though, evidence clearly indicates neanderthalic races (slavs, persians, east asians and western europeans), are more amicable to advanced societies and civilization.

>>5584206

>That's not really a problem. I mean, such people will vehemently spout such things whether there's research into it or not. Shit, even if theirs research directly opposing what they're saying, they'll still continue to spout it.

Seriously? It's not really a problem?

Less than a century ago certain people were not allowed to get married because they were different races; or they were forcibly euthanized and subject to work camps.

The problem with the argument that humans are innately different in ways they cannot control, when applied on the level of race, is that it facilitates systematic dehumanization, or at least considering one person less worthy of their 'personhood'.

>>5584298
>Recognizing real differences in populations is equivalent to individual prejudice.

>Denying reality leads to sunny weather and prosperity!

>>5584298

So you want to to keep the population unable to make choices based on facts because those facts may lead them to a conclusion you don't like?

That sounds like propaganda and intellectual dishonesty.

>>5584036
But if you want to divide into these distinct ancestral populaitons, then we have hundreds in humanity.

It's not as though we teach ignoring race because we're just really nice. It also has to do with the fact that it becomes a hindrance to meritocracy (see: India). If you want to know the worth of a human, an individual, it's always more informative to simply judge the person than it is to say "this person can be divided into category X and Y, and the average last year for all member's of X's performance in some trait was estimated to be such and such, so this person has Z probability of having this trait".

>>5584014

Except it's not. In fact it's the other way around. Social/moral/religious/etc.. reasons would prefer people to be broken down into races, genetically this doesn't work, at least not in the way that people would like them broken down unless you employ some circular logic (whereby you define a race as the thing you're trying to deduce).

>>5584302
>>5584307

>Denying reality leads to sunny weather and prosperity!

Stop exaggerating what I'm saying. You make this thread like every other day.

Even if everything being claimed was 100% true, I don't believe that most people are intellectually equipped to responsibly handle such information or even fully understand its implications. This has historic precedent, moreover. That's why there's such great potential for abuse.

Moreover, half-truths have a track record of being more damaging than lack of information. Making judgements off of limited information is often worse than reserving judgement altogether.

Information is a tool like any other; it can be used destructively or constructively. Even disregarding that I don't believe in the biologic validity of the concept of race, I think this information is very easy to misinterpret (and has been).

>philosophy research paper
>science

>>5584332

The linked article shows every "race is a social construct" argument to be wrong.

You consider race along paths of ancestry up to where major divergence has happened. Using your logic species don't exist either.

>>5584337

In other words:

>I want to to keep the population unable to make choices based on facts because those facts may lead them to a conclusion I don't like.

I was exactly right in my prediction.

>>5584345
the problem is precisely the choices wouldn't be based on facts, but on misrepresentation of information.

>>5584345

No, I consider race something that someone should be able to deduce by machine learning algorithms flying blind on human genetic data, specifically clustering algorithms. The races identified through the machine learning algorithms would be nothing like what these people propose however. They would be way more interesting and useful from a scientific standpoint, but they would never be able to tell you if you're the same "race" as your neighbor or even your family members. It would be exactly what these people are trying to avoid which is why they don't do it.

tl;dr this is bad science and you should feel bad.

>>5584351

You seem to be perfectly fine with todays misrepresentation of race not existing.

Again the issue comes down to you not wanting people to reach a conclusion you disagree with or have factual information exist that supports such a conclusion.

>>5584368
No, the problem rests with you for the same reason and it's outlined here.
>>5584353

Could you accept the concept of races existing if it meant dividing humans into completely different groups than the ones you've become accustomed to? What if it meant that you couldn't identify someone's race or even ballpark it without some sort of genetic testing? What if the only real uses for it was for medical diagnosis/treatment. What if you are grouped off in a different race from your favorite intellectual heroes? What if you're grouped in the same race as your most hated degenerate?

If you have any issue with any of these at all then you're a dipshit.

>>5584345
but species don't exist. WHOLFINS ARE FERTILE!!!

>>5584353
>>5584378

This is nonsensical and is inconsistent with taxonomy which is based on ancestry and evolutionary divergence.

Depending on how you group things a a mouse and a human may be closer then a human and human.

Anyway haploGroups among countries are consistent with race and the lines of ancestry model so this is a nonissue.

>>5584298
You missed the point of my post entirely. It's not a problem to science, because science isn't the one oppressing those people.

>Less than a century ago certain people were not allowed to get married because they were different races; or they were forcibly euthanized and subject to work camps.

Science didn't cause this. Do you think if you went into a klansmen's house and slapped down a definitive research report proving that intellectually blacks and whites are the same, that he'd instantly converted and thank you for pulling him out of his ignorance?

The point I was making is that regardless of what science does or doesn't do, people will still draw their own conclusions and hold their own biases/prejudices.

>>5584387
>Taxonomy is legit guise, all lines of evolution are divergent and scale proportionally. We can totally use it without ever having to think about it. Also, people never interbreed and haven't for the million years of mankind's existence. Look at all this scientific rigor, why aren't you supporting me?

It's retarded, you're retarded. Haplogroups don't divide people into "races", there's just regional distributions. All it breaks down to is lines of ancestry through chains of mothers/fathers. It's not only lossy but says very little about the more interesting genetics. Worse even, the mapping is so bad that you can't even guess your own haplogroup much less your neighbor's. How can you say that "all these races I grew up with I can identify with all these haplogroups" if you can't even guess your own?

>>5584321
>"this person can be divided into category X and Y, and the average last year for all member's of X's performance in some trait was estimated to be such and such, so this person has Z probability of having this trait".
Ah, but this happens in just about every other facet of science. Why is it unacceptable in this one tiny microcosm of science?

>>5584395
It's called rigor. You're essentially doing the same shit as astrology because the science is so bad.

Even worse you're promoting the idea that people can divide these persons into categories X and Y by eye alone.

>>5584337
>Even if everything being claimed was 100% true, I don't believe that most people are intellectually equipped to responsibly handle such information or even fully understand its implications.
Watch out /sci/, the arbiter of science is breezing on through to tell us what the entire world can handle.

>>5584378

>What if you are grouped off in a different race from your favorite intellectual heroes? What if you're grouped in the same race as your most hated degenerate?

what kind of argument is this.

>>5584394

> Haplogroups don't divide people into "races", there's just regional distributions. All it breaks down to is lines of ancestry through chains of mothers/fathers.

Lines of ancestry tracing back to the original divergent populations is what we are referring to as race. Those mothers/fathers are the creators of the European race, they are who the European population descended from.

Haplogroups do divide people into race, European populations being genetically distinct and closer to each other then to african/asian populations, the groupings model their migration/adaptation as they expanded across Europe.

>>5584407
One that points out that the ones pushing morals and social norms are the racefags and not the other way around.

>>5584410
>Lines of ancestry tracing back to the original divergent populations is what we are referring to as race. Those mothers/fathers are the creators of the European race, they are who the European population descended from.
lol'd hard, go back to /x/ or /pol/. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5584398
>You're essentially doing the same shit as astrology because the science is so bad.
Okay
>Even worse you're promoting the idea that people can divide these persons into categories X and Y by eye alone.
No, I am not. If people come upon that conclusion of their own accord, then it's likely because they're looking to prove a bias they already hold. If the research wasn't there, they'd latch onto something else to try and loosely (and incorrectly) prove their biases.

>>5584414

Then why aren't you pushing completely new overhauled "racial groups" based on raw genetic data that divided humans into far more useful groups. I really hope you're not that idiot that thinks European race is a thing considering all the different haplogroups there even within just the scope of Y-DNA or MT-DNA.

>>5584411
An assumption you've made based on absolutely nothing. I'm not even the one that post was originally directed at, but jeez dude, get a grip. You're pretty much calling someone a racist solely because they don't agree with you. It's hurting your argument.

By the way, as a white male, if I somehow knew that studies in race would prove the white man inferior (ignoring for a second that "white man" is so ambiguous) I would still be championing for the studies to take place. I don't think that people should be kept in the dark on something just because they might not like the results.

>>5584413

Sweet retort bro, really showed me.

Unfortunately haplogroup data supports my position.

>>5584353

The problem with this position is that it assumes all genes are of equal worth. Groupings should be based upon observable differences that actually express themselves in the human.

They are irrelevant if they don't actually affect the organism in some fashion.

>>5584416
You and I are the only two people on this website. Seriously man, you have no idea what I'm pushing or not and the more you post the more you prove your entire standpoint is based on assumptions.

>>5584421
mfw the cropped version of this picture originates from a stormfront thread.

Why don't you try explaining what an eigen value has to do with your picture there so you at least look like you understand it.

>>5584424

This is actually a very good point.

>>5584430
Not that guy, but are you saying that the picture doesn't demonstrate that people can easily be clustered based on their ancestry, or are you just saying that guy didn't understand how the graph shows this.

>>5584436

Yes. And such a grouping would roughly lead to the racial classifications we have today as they exist as a consistent set of observable traits shared within each population group that past down from parents to kids.

>>5584353
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007888

>>5584446
1) Due to the way MT-DNA and Y-DNA it can be used to cluster people by region/lines of ancestry depending on how you sample. This can be coincidental.

2) This picture doesn't prove much without the associated research paper and methodology. It's a graph of Eigen values which suggests that the data has undergone some manipulation (this is normal and useful but if improper methodology is undergone it can cause you to shrink other stuff and magnify the stuff you're specifically looking for, a sort of circular reasoning).

3) The girl/guy who posted it is a stormfront user who does not understand the stuff (s)he's posting or talking about and is just parroting stuff to push an agenda regarding science (s)he doesn't understand.

Wow that paper is written rather poorly.
Someone should of gotten a better thesis advisor and learned how to write an academic paper.

>>5584456

Any actual flaws in the arguments or do you just not like the way it's worded?

>>5584449

No, this not only does not follow from that, but it is very unlikely due to the way clustering algorithms work. In other words, genes for eye color/skin color/etc.. would have as much weight as genes for any other set of proteins (things that people can't detect with the human eye).

>>5584455
The paper is using PCA, and you clearly don't understand what that means or how to interpret it either.

PCA takes the linear subspaces that explain the most variation in the data.

Any clustering that appears when you plot the first two eigenvalues, is almost certainly not something you could "force" the data to do. Although different methodologies would result in very differently shaped plots, the existence of clusters based on ancestry is not an artifact of PCA.

>>5584459
pls see
>>5584454

>>5584467
I was looking through that article. I have no issue with it. I think you would find more people complaining that the nordic people are so genetically similar to northern africans/middle easterners. Especially considering social norms regarding those "races".

>>5584465

This would be clear if an actual research paper was linked.

>>5584471
I never saw the paper, but when you see this kind of plot it always comes from PCA.

If you're going to claim that eigenvalues imply the data might be manipulated, you should know what you're talking about

>>5584475

I have seen very similar charts with eigen values as well. It's a common methodology when dealing with huge data sets in machine learning to compress it using a series of techniques before boiling it down to eigen values. Sometimes you have data with hundreds of dimensions.

>>5584480
Not sure what kind of compression you're talking about. PCA is a kind of compression since the eignevalues are ranked on order of how much variation the corresponding eigenvectors explain.

>>5584459

To reiterate, useful groupings need to be based upon actual observable differences that exist that physically impact the persons biology. Groups based upon this would be consistent with todays racial divisions but that doesn't even need to be done to divide populations along racial lines.

>>5584469

Why would we complain? It's consistent with historical migration, berbers are nearly european along with some arab populations though arabs have undergone mixing from black slave populations.

>>5584484
>That physically impact the person's biology.
>Observable differences.

These are not necessarily the same thing.

>>5584483
Actually, I just realized we're talking about the same thing. For some reason I wasn't thinking and assumed you meant something internal to genetics when you mentioned PCA instead of realizing you meant Principal Component Analysis. For some reason I didn't expect it to be used in that field.

There are some other methods of compressing data and some other ways to deal with the lossy data. There are cases where you want your machine learning algorithm to search for a very specific thing so manipulating a dataset to magnify what you're looking for isn't out of the question. This does however seem to be irrelevant to the discussion so I'll drop that now. I would like to see an actual research paper however. Throwing it into google only pulls some random websites as well as the stormfront thread that cropped version originated from.

>>5584496

It was posted on the eurogenes blog. I can't find the link to the post right now.