/sci/ - Science & Math

>races
No such thing.

no the jews have evolved to function perfectly well with it

they have even developed large, brutish, bloodthirtsty females

>>9460018
>he doesnt understand how language works

>>9460018
>species
no such thing
>states
no such thing
>law
no such thing
>numbers
no such thing
>objects made of matter
no such thing

>>9460032
I'm sorry brainlet, but race is not science.

>>9460039
t. shitskin

>>9460039
sure it isn't

>>9460046
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
The nepalese paki race, the cambodian thai race, the iraqui race...lol

Race is not science.

>>9460050
you can literally tell which of the dots are likely to shit in the street just by looking at them

>>9460058
>gen of street shitting
Where is the research?

Are you another pseudoscience lover?

>>9460013
>it's a soy thread *combined* with a racebait thread
Always the innovator, /pol/

>>9460050
>I don't like it so it's not science
Humans clearly developed in many distinct populations that share common ancestry and distinct traits. Many of these populations cluster together in larger groups that are broadly similar and overall very distant from other main clusterings. Just because you can't make a mathematically sound definition of "the white race" does not mean you can't analyze racial traits.

You've fallen for a bunch of pilpul. Races are not hard categories the way chemical isotopes are, but they are still useful categories with immense predictive value like religion, nationality or sex.

>>9460065
>religion, nationality or sex
So what you are saying is that race is a social construct.

>>9460063
im from /lit/ and am genuinely curious—seems like the cliff jump of american testoisterone has not affected blacks, and i imagine asians are more used to the stuff

>>9460065
If an African man has a child with a European woman, what race is the child? If that child then marries someone who is 50% Asian and 50% middle eastern, what is the race of the second generation child?

>>9460068
Yeah. The same way words, numbers, colors and even macroscopic physical objects themselves are. That immense, ever-shifting collection of fundamental particles serving you at McDonalds is only a distinct "human" because it is a useful way to perceive it and model its behaviour.

>>9460078
if a piece of furniture is half bench, half chair, what is it? see, chairs doesn't real!!!

>>9460078
Mixed. It belongs to none of the broadly categorized races. But you can take its DNA and tell that its ancestors come from the populations that evolved seperately for tens of thousands of years in Africa, Europe, Asia and the middle east.

>>9460060
>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Wrong again. It seems that you haven't got the idea of my last post so I'll have to spoonfeed you.

Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

Let's be honest with ourselves, you just want to keep forcing your pseudoscience for your political preferences, amirite?

The funny thing is that you have only used strawmen and your brainlet is unable to address the topic in any other way lol

>>9460086
Oops.
It's for you>>9460065

>>9460069
>i'm from /lit/
>I don't have to produce evidence of a claim I just have to say it.

It seems like you should back up your wild assertions with facts before you ask us to explain a mechanism. Classic /lit/ the most interesting stories are fiction pretending to be fact.

>>9460080
Troll harder.

>>9460086
tha absolute state of your brain

>>9460086
>Race is not scientifically based.
Race, ethnicity affect likelihood of finding a suitable unrelated stem cell donor for cancer patients
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911091515.htm

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/race-matters-when-a-patient-needs-a-stem-cell-or-marrow-transplant/2013/08/05/51abdf04-f2d9-11e2-ae43-b31dc363c3bf_story.html?utm_term=.59c9662e06f5

Effects of race on survival after stem cell transplantation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083879104009802

>>9460100
>likelihood
Key word there. It's a statistical estimation of ancestry, but would never be used on its own.

>>9460100
>more correlations
>race=ethnicity
See>>9460086
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science. AKA race is pseudoscience.
Wew lad, how many times have you been BTFO in every thread?

>>9460086
>categorizing things is not scientific
Fuck the entire field of taxonomy, then, because that's what we're doing, retard. We take a collection of assorted individuals and empirically sort them into useful categories to more easily study them.

Species, geni, clada - all are defined by convention. There is no cosmic, fundamental difference at play here like there is with the different flavours of quark or whatever. No two animals are identical, even the same animal at two different points in time is not identical.

You could try to map the human genome and account for each and every single allele of each and every single gene, and how it interacts with each and every single other gene and epigenetic factor - and use that to make predictions about the individual. Or you could observe the fact that since humans evolved in largely seperated populations, many of these traits tend to cluster together due to developing in a single isolated group.

Nobody is saying race is some magical, absolute categorization. It's a useful empirical tool with high predictive value. A social construct? Well yes, but so are most concepts you hold in that thick skull of yours. The United States of America is a social construct, but if you go bomb some federal building you will learn its value as a heuristic very quickly.

>>9460069
>claims to be from /lit/
>can't use proper punctuation or grammar
Fuck off /pol/

>>9460105
>>race=ethnicity
Who are you quoting?

>>9460096
what is the fundamental, physical distinction between the atoms and space contained in your desk, and the ones not in your desk?

You don't get to just dismiss shit you're too dumb to address. "Social construct" is such an overused catchphrase that you brainlets never even stop to think about what it really means.

>>9460111
>Fuck the entire field of taxonomy
Precisely. It's outdated and being replaced.

>>9460104
>It's a statistical estimation of ancestry, but would never be used on its own.
What do you mean?

>>9460120
No doctor would base any decision on race alone without running tests.

>>9460117
Honestly why does this issue even matter so much to you? Is it because you want social affirmation for your white supremacist tendencies? Just go to a Klan meeting and keep it off /sci/.

>>9460122
wrong

>>9460124
>why does the truth even matter
last gasps

>>9460117
If my desk only existed only for me because of how I was raised and my thoughts and others who were raised differently or thought differently could pass straight through it then it would be a social construct.

>>9460132

>>9460122
>No doctor would base any decision on race alone without running tests.

1. National Statistics (2001). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=273..
2. Ageymang C & Bhopal R. Is the blood pressure of people from African origin adults in the UK higher or lower than that in European origin white people? A review of cross-sectional data. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2003; 17(8). 523-534
3. Cappuccio FP et al. Hypertension and ethnicity: prevalence and level of detection and management in the community in England. American Journal of Hypertension. 1997; 10, 22A.
4. Cappuccio FP. Ethnicity and cardiovascular risk: variation in people of African ancestry and South Asian origin. Journal of Human Hypertension. 1997; 11, 571-576.
5. Primatesta P et al. Blood pressure levels and hypertension status among ethnic groups in England. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2000; 14, 143-148.
6. Lip GYH et al. Ethnicity and cardiovascular disease prevention in the United Kingdom: a practical approach to management. Journal of Human Hypertension. 2007; 21, 183-211.
7. He FJ et al. Importance of the renin system in determining blood pressure fall with salt restriction in black and white hypertensives. Hypertension. 2001; 32, 820-824
8. He FJ et al. Effect of Modest Salt reduction on Blood Pressure, Urinary Albumin and pulse Wave velocity in which black and Asian mild hypertensives. Hypertension. 2009; 54, 482-488.
9. Vollmer WM et al. Effects of diet and sodium intake on blood pressure; subgroup analysis of the DASH sodium trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001; 135, 1019-1028
10. Swift et al. Modest salt reduction lowers blood pressure and urine protein excretion in black hypertensives. Hypertension. 2005;46:1-5
11. These calculations of reduction in risk for black people of African descent are based on two papers: Prospective Studies Collaboration. Lancet. 2002; 2 The 360,1903-1913 and Vollmer et al. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001; 135 (12), 1019-1028.

>>9460126
So unless we all don our pointy white hats and start lynching people society is doomed? Go get your head checked.

>>>/pol/ (yes, you're from /pol/)

>>9460111
>the ammount of strawmen in the first two paragraphs
I really hope you are from pol. Nobody is that stupid.
>race is not magical
Race is not science. You trying to deny this fact even though I proved why it's not science over here>>9460086 , only shows how much delusional you can get the more goalshifting attempts you have made and will do.
>useful
It's premises literally contradicts scientific truths, no matter hoe many correlations you throw in every post.

I wasn't willing to move an inch for your brainlet and I still won't, but this anon here: >>9460119 shows the scientific process how taxonomy classifications are changing over time.
>>9460126
The truth has already be spoken. Race is not science.

>>9460142
Um.... dude... You didn't address my statement at all...

>>9460152
>Um.... dude... You didn't address my statement at all...
I'm not a "dude".

>>9460147
>I proved why it's not science
No you did not.

>>9460176
I didn't prove anything anon. The truth has proved it.

Now, if you pseudoscience supporters want to prove race is science. Go on. ;^)

>>9460119
>In biology, phylogenetics /ˌfaJloʊdʒəˈnɛtJks, -lə-/[1][2] (Greek: φυλή, φῦλον - phylé, phylon = tribe, clan, race + γενετιkός - genetikós = origin, source, birth)[3] is the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among individuals or groups of organisms (e.g. species, or populations). These relationships are discovered through phylogenetic inference methods that evaluate observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences or morphology under a model of evolution of these traits. The result of these analyses is a phylogeny (also known as a phylogenetic tree) – a diagrammatic hypothesis about the history of the evolutionary relationships of a group of organisms.[4] The tips of a phylogenetic tree can be living organisms or fossils, and represent the "end", or the present, in an evolutionary lineage. Phylogenetic analyses have become central to understanding biodiversity, evolution, ecology, and genomes.
I don't see taxonomy being replaced by only studying individual specimens, I see it being replaced by another, more accurate system of classification into broad groups. This is literally what classifying humans into ancestral groups with certain traits is, my friend. You keep trying to drag the argument into the purely semantical realm, ignoring the substance.

Taxonomy and phylogenetics do the same practical thing - classify living things for study. Race is a useful concept in both.

Do you deny the existence of dog breeds? I mean, there is no hard definition to those either.
>>9460147
>strawmen
I don't think you understand what a strawman is. I would be strawmanning if I were trying to define your position as something it isn't. But what I am actually doing is defining MY position. You seem to perceive my rejection of your strawmen as a strawman in itself. Quite ironic.
>I proved why it's not science over here
You didn't prove anything, you made a strawman and an assertion.

>>9460147
>x is science
>y isn't science
what are you basing those on, anyway? Science is the empirical study of the universe by applying the scientific method. That's it. Facts:
>humans evolved for tens of thousands of years in several almost completely isolated populations
>these populations developed different traits and there is significant genetic distance between them
>descendants of these ancestral populations are phenotipically distinct and in the vast majority of cases easily identifiable externally
I don't care what your sociology professor defined race as, what I speak of when I use the term are these ancestral populations and their current who have not hybridized beyond recognition.

Race is a heuristic, as I have told you fucking dozen times over. Heuristics are used in science all the time to analyze impractically complex systems. Everyone knows it is a heuristic, but if it has predictive value you cannot deny it either.

>>9460195
>you x
See>>9460105
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science. AKA race is pseudoscience.
>>9460176
>>9460212
>what are you
I'm not basing anything. I'm pointing out how the very concept of race itself denies a scientific truth.
>the differences between individuals demonstrate races
Yeah the nepal thai race, the long nose race...?
>race is
Not science. Therefore, race is pseudoscience.

>>9460195
>Taxonomy and phylogenetics do the same practical thing - classify living things for study. Race is a useful concept in both.
It's only useful when studying modern western social phenomena, because that's how it is socially constructed at this point in history.

In the 100 years war, I'm sure the Brits and Franks saw each other as inferior, and were able to distinguish each other from their looks. They would also have separate ancestries tied with genetic differences.

The point is you can get all sorts of traits tied to any group you want, as long as you define the group. Sickle cell is associated with "black" people, but it is actually only a sub-population in Africa. Applying it to "black people" is statistically valid, but kind of misleading.

>>9460195
>>9460212
To conclude:

You can bitch about whether heuristics and conventions should be classified as scientific or not all day, it does not remove the usefulness and predictive value of the concept of race. When making political and economic decisions, it is the predictive value that matters not its scientific integrity - engineers calculate stresses in solids based on inaccurate continuum mechanics, and ballistic trajectories based on inaccurate newtonian mechanics. So long as the errors are statistically insignificant, you use the simplest model that will give you the result you want.

People who phenotypically express the traits associated with the west african and east african ancestral populations are statistically far more predisposed to sickle cell anemia, violent crime and lower test scores. These are real world results used to make real world decisions. If their ancestry is known, even more so. Your disagreement with this is based on entirely semantical and aethereal grounds and is frankly irrelevant.

>>9460225
>>9460235
Also for (you)
>>9460234

>>9460235
>you can do x
I'm sorry but you still forcing your claim that race is science, won't become true the more you repeat it.

I've already explained why race is not scientifically based.

You csn do all you want and research all you want about not-scientific fields like "politics", as you have demonstrated in your post, that's your intention; however, race is still not science and has no scientific rigor. Race is pseudoscience, sorry.

>>9460225
>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science. AKA race is pseudoscience.
No. It's a heuristic. Fuck your semantics. Pattern matching and bayesian prediction are entirely valid. If one phenotypical trait is strongly correlated and has an indirect causal link to another, it is perfectly reasonable to make predictions. Science is not pure math, it's an excercise in discovering and documenting patterns for practical usage.
>>9460234
Just because you can make different categorizations does not mean you can't make this specific one. "Race" is a term used for ancestrally linked populations in all kinds of scales historically, but for the past 200 odd years it has had a common meaning in denoting the 4-6 major human ancestral groups. Not to mention the fact that the line between an Englishman and a Frenchman is much more blurred than the one between a German and a Khoisan, due to much more recent seperation and constant genetic drift.

Again, this is devolving into semantics. Call it whatever you want, but I wall keep calling it race - and it is a useful heuristic. Invoking it is no more fallacious than using Newtonian mechanics in cases where the effects of GR or quantum phenomena are completely insignificant.

>>9460256
>semantics
Denying genetic fenomena like genotype definning phenotype, is not a semantic problem, anon. You keep trying to discard that huge problem with your "semantic" boogeyman, but it doesn't work.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

>>9460249
You seem to be completely unable to understand the fact that what is "scientifically based" is just as much a social construct as that of "race".

A matter of convention. It is not fallacious to use race or any other simplified model/heuristic when you are aware of its limitations, and the errors are within acceptable margins for the work you're doing.

Since you don't seem to understand this, let me show you two examples:
Exhibit A (race not a valid model):
>person 1 is a negro, person 2 is an asian
>therefore 1 must have a lower IQ than 2
This is not a valid use of the model because you will not produce any result with a high degree of confidence, and will often be wrong.
Exhibit B (race is perfectly valid):
>nation 1 is populated mostly by negroes, nation 2 is populated mostly by north-east asians
>therefore nation 2 will have a higher mean IQ score
The second result is likely to produce a high degree of confidence, and will often be correct.

You will never have certainties, but nothing in science operates on certainties. Just high degrees of confidence.

>>9460275
>You will never have certainties
You still are trying to ignore the point as I explained here>>9460086
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

And I, again, pointed out how race contradicts genetics in this post >>9460264

How many times are you going to get Blown The Fuck Out in this thread? lol

>>9460264
No, it is not pseudoscience. It is a heuristic - simplified - model of the world, based on reasonably reliable patterns. But ultimately so are all macroscopic models that study emergent patterns. The only truly hard model would be predicting everything from the most fundamental principles up. Damn near everything you do is basedo on these simplifications. I have been trying to explain this to you a million times but you don't seem to get it. Science and pure math/logic are not the same thing and do not operate the same way.

>>9460280
holy fuck you are retarded, downvote

>>9460280
>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype
Again, for your slow head:
science
is
not
math

You can operate with correlation, too. Apparent phenotype is CORRELATED with genotype, and it is CAUSALLY LINKED with genotype, though inversely. You can not PROVE but you can INFER. This is how probabilistic analysis works. You cannot prove that this specific person that looks like a negro will carry some common negro genetic markers, but when you have a thousand persons that look like negroes you can make statistical predictions and expect them to hold up.

>>9460281
>it's not pseudoscience
As it literally contradicts the basis of genetics, yes it is.
>>9460288
>correlations
Is that everything you got?

The rejection of genetics is not a simple "semantic" problem, you can use it all you want in your non-scientific fields, specially in your favourite topic: politics as you mentioned here>>9460235, however it's not science.

I wonder which kind of wordplay approach you are going to use now...

>>9460280
You don't need to imply that phenotype defines genotype, you literal autist. If race as a heuristic model proves to work as a feasible way for predicting behavioural patterns, it may be preserved as a valid scientific concept. Just like economis sciences.

>>9460315
>you don't need to imply
Except that categorization methods are influenced by appearance judgements. You "literal", "autist".

>>9460315
>Just like economis sciences.
So by adding science after a word you can make it seem more legitimate while really just hiding the fact that you have no real Idea how anything works and controlled experiments can't be set up.

>>9460321
Do economic sciences provide working, reliable predictive models under certain societal conditions?

>>9460039
If a black man has a baby with a black women, it's equally likely to be white as it is to be black eh? And no, this is not a bullshit and petty argument, it means there is some kind of genetic cluster we can point to, the size at which it is considered a "race" is completely arbitrary semantics and is neither scientific nor unscientific.

>>9460333
See>>9460086
Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

>>9460013
That's such a shitty shoop it's incredible.

>>9460298
New anon here, just skimmed the chain of posts you're involved in. Is it another "anon is a retard and doesn't understand that visible macrostructural phenotype doesn't correlate strongly to overall genetic diversity by nature of the vast majority of genes acting on either internal structure, biochemical pathway, or otherwise aren't visible to the naked eye" episode?

Just make a copypasta or something that explains how we determine classifications of life by the ratio of diversity within vs. between populations (measured by the absolute genetic differentiation), and that we can't group 'race' together because at any level of arbitration you set the scale of how different populations have to be, you'll end up with weird groupings that have no correlation to what we call races.

Most people then just argue that there's no way that things can be genetically different without looking different skin-deep, and that things can't be genetically similar even if they have macrostructural traits that are rather different. If you show any specific data or show examples of this very principle, then it almost on cue devolves into a shit gargling mess of conspiracy claims and bringing politics into the mix even though there had been none to that point. So, I mean, even a copypasta I guess wouldn't be able to fix the endemic problem with how /pol/tards should just stay in their containment board if they aren't willing to actually learn science.

>>9460325
No they don't.

>>9460096
>>9460112
Why would being from /lit/ give him any credentials that you are trying to dismiss here? Being from /sci/ doesn't mean you are smart either.

>>9460344
>the borders between things will necessarily be fuzzy so we throw the baby out with the bathwater
This autism is unbelievable.

>>9460344
I'm not trying to involve anything though. I'm just pointing out that race isn't science. For the average joe this would be easy to understand, yet the fact that they are throwing wordplay to reject this fact, and even involved politics in this matter>>9460235, it's kinda obvious why do they keep denying that race isn't science.

Race denialists are the new creationists.

>>9460352
No, it's a matter of classification in science. It's not that the borders are fuzzy, it's that there's little actual definitive correlation between macroscopic visible traits and non-visible traits.

Race is ultimately a social construct in that we draw the lines around people of different traits. It's not scientific- it's not about being precise, it's about following genetic dogma, and adhering to the principles that make it a valid dogma; that traits are often clumped haplotypically in any kind of heritage, that evolution occurs and changes the alleles within a population, and the analysis of these various levels on a quantitative level will be able to determine what heritable phenotypes exist in given populations.

The analysis, however, lends itself to there not being races in the same groupings we know- Africans and Europeans would end up being grouped in some areas, and there would be many different African 'races', as a simple example of what happens with a quantitative model. This then lends itself towards race not being something that genetics defines, but something defined by societal arbitration; i.e. a social construct.

>>9460356
I meant involved in as in the person you were responding to. It's a whole new level of retardation to say "quantitatively/scientifically, it turns out that this is not the case.", then they argue "But what if you set criteria like genes that affect X Y or Z and then group based on genes that are 'more important'?", and when you mention that arbitrating which loci you're looking at beyond perhaps gene encoding regions, and that this arbitration is societally determined, therefore the concept itself becomes a social construct that employs data in order to define classifications- they act like bumbling retards or they just leave.

>>9460345
>who are Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman etc

>>9460379
Economists.

S O Y
O O _
Y _ Y

>>9460013
Whites have the lowest sex hormones out of the Caucasoid race so their men tend to be soyboys if exposed to xenoestrogens where as middle eastern men or north africans will take centuries before any soy behavior blooms in their populations.

>race is not real
You have to be mentally retarded to not think there is a serious genetic gap between africans and Eurasians.

>>9460394
There's "serious" genetic gaps between populations of the same "race" too. Race can be defined multiple ways.

>>9460046
Can someone explain this?

>>9460405
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

>>9460394
There is a genetic gap between humans. Yet race categorizations isn't science.

>>9460405
Lewontin Fallacy.

>>9460405
>same race
No no on all africans with high melanin make a single racial group. Just as all pale skinned Caucasoids that lived in North West Eurasia make a single "white" race.

>>9460414
>>9460422
Nice, exactly.

>>9460429
See>>9460416

>>9460337
If race isnt real, genocide isnt real. Read some aristotle you cunt

>>9460812
Race isn't science. Write something more convincing, brainlet.

>>9460363
>Flatearthers
>Creationists
>Muslims
>Tinfoil hats from /x/
>Unironical Nazi larpers
>Centrists

>>9460825
>Race isn't science.
How so?

>>9460825
Then i should surely be allowed to immigrate to Israel, since race isnt scientific.
>Implying i would waste time trying to convert the enemy

>>9460839
How is "race", science?

>>9460841
>then i should
Race isn't science. Try again with a non-brainlet text.

>>9460843
>How is "race", science?
Here, have a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

>>9460843
Its a concept from biology. Dogs have races (or subspecies), so do humans to. If you dissagree, you are just as superstitious as creationists

>>9460845
Stop projecting nigger

>>9460854
>Stop projecting nigger
Why the racism?

>>9460855
Race isnt science

>>9460856
see >>9460847

>>9460858
Shut up. If race isnt real i cant be racist.

>>9460847
This doesn't prove race is science, brainlet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype. This implication is completely false. Race is not scientifically based. Therefore, race is not science.

>>9460851
See ^ the first part of my post.
>>9460860
Who cares what you do, brainlet. Race is still pseudoscience.

>>9460873
>This doesn't prove race is science, brainlet.
Race can be studied via the scientific method, hence is science.

>>9460873
>Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features, implying that apparent phenotype defines genotype.
Why does it imply that?

>>9460875
Wrong. See>>9460873
Race literally contradicts scientific facts.
>>9460877
Due to its inherited XIX century classifications. As the current race jedgements are influenced by appearance, it contradicts science. I think this is easy to understand.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.
This is from the other thread.

>>9460878
>Wrong. See>>9460873
That post doesn't explain why race can't be studied using the scientific method.

Next?

>>9460875
Just change race to subspecie. Shazam its Biology

Race-Based Therapeutics
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048271

Are we moving into a new era of race-based therapeutics? The publication, in this issue of the Journal, of the African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) (pages 2049–2057), a clinical trial of a medication intended for a single racial group, poses this awkward question. The study's most striking finding — that the addition of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine to conventional therapy for heart failure reduced relative one-year mortality by 43 percent among blacks — will provoke wide discussion. The trial's sponsor, NitroMed, which holds a patent on the fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine that was used, posits that heart failure has a different pathophysiology in blacks than in whites, necessitating different treatment strategies.

>>9460880
No post in this thread can deny the fact that race contradicts scientific facts. Race isn't science. Sorry, not sorry.

>>9460889
>No post in this thread can deny the fact that race contradicts scientific facts.
Can you give an example?

>>9460893
It's up to pseudoscience lovers to demonstrate that race is science. Which it isn't.

Race is pseudoscience.

>>9460895
>It's up to pseudoscience lovers to demonstrate that race is science.
No, it's up to science deniers to demonstrate that it isn't science.

>>9460880
>Be leftist proffesor from some marxist hellhole
>Hurrdur race isnt science, but whitey is evil and take everything from you
>Tries to deny nigger tier scientific concept
>Utterly fails because he is a fucking autist with underdeveloped visual cortex
>Gets uterly destroyed by literal brainlets like pic related
>Still makes fun of creationists

>>9460898
>>Be leftist proffesor from some marxist hellhole
>>Hurrdur race isnt science, but whitey is evil and take everything from you
>>Tries to deny nigger tier scientific concept
>>Utterly fails because he is a fucking autist with underdeveloped visual cortex
>>Gets uterly destroyed by literal brainlets like pic related
>>Still makes fun of creationists
Who are you quoting?

>>9460897
>science deniers
You still haven't demonstrated that race is science. Brainlet type posts won't save you, boy ;^)

>>9460900
Race is still not science.

>>9460900
The Phd faggots who deny race

>>9460910
>You still haven't demonstrated that race is science.
Anything that can be studied using the scientific method is science, therefore race is science.

Next?

>>9460913
>anything that can be studied
Wrong. Race contradicts scientific facts. Therefore, race isn't science. Why do you keep avoiding this?

>>9460911
>The Phd faggots who deny race
Why the homophobia?

>>9460917
>Race contradicts scientific facts.
Then those previous scientific "facts" were actually incorrect.

>>9460913
Are you sure about that?

>>9460929
>Are you sure about that?
The shape of the Earth can be studied scientifically, I'm not sure what you're implying.

>>9460918
Homophobia is science

>>9460934
>Homophobia is science
There's nothing scientific about homophobia.

>>9460921
Genotype definning phenotype isn't incorrect, brainlet.

Race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.

Human sub-species 100% exist unless someone can explain how sickle cell anaemia only affecting blacks is a social construct.

>>9460938
>Genotype definning phenotype isn't incorrect, brainlet.
If race were to contradict a scientific "fact", then that "fact" was in fact not a fact.

>>9460938

>>9460937
Neither is homophillia, checkmate big brain

>>9460943
>>9460950
>denying that Genotype defines phenotype
You pseudoscience lovers are really entertaining.

>>9460930
Looks pretty flat from my perspective.

>>9460961
>>denying that Genotype defines phenotype
Who are you quoting?

>>9460972
It's a deduction of this guy's post>>9460943
Are you the brainlet from the other thread?

>>9460961
That image doesn't make any mention of phenotype at all. It's a representation of genetic differences between different populations which leaves you in a pickle because your argument now is just wrong.

>>9460989
>It's a deduction of this guy's post>>9460943
Can you represent the deduction symbolically? Your argument is very muddled as it currently stands.

>>9460961
>>denying that Genotype defines phenotype
you are the only one saying that you fucking faggot, get off sci and kys youre ruining all the threads

>>9461003
>you are the only one saying that you fucking faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>9460991
That image can categorize 554 genetic background people from different countries. How does it prove that a categorization system which uses appearance judgements, therefore contradicts science, is science? It doesn't. Thus, race isn't science.
>>9460996
I think it's pretty much intuitive.
>>9461003
>only one
Racial classifications are affected by appearance judgements. Do you sincerely believe I'm the one claiming this? lol

>>9461015
>I think it's pretty much intuitive.
It's not. Can you represent the deduction symbolically? Your argument is very muddled as it currently stands.

>>9461015
>How does it prove that a categorization system which uses appearance judgements, therefore contradicts science, is science?
How do appearance judgements contradict science? Science is by definition empirical (derived from the senses). Are you saying scientists can't use their eyes?

>>9461015
>How does it prove that a categorization system which uses appearance judgements, therefore contradicts science, is science?
We're not using appearance judgements though. We can classify races using genetic data alone, which makes your entire argument irrelevant. We have new ways of obtaining information than the people in Darwins time did and guess what? The idea that humans have significant differences right down to the genetic level if they evolved in different areas is 100% fact. We don't need to appeal to differences in phenotype AT ALL

So the question is now your objection (which was quite weak in the first place) has no relevance to genetic data that proves racial differences where do you go from here?

>>9461036
>Science is by definition empirical (derived from the senses).
>I don't need anything more than just my senses to do science.
OK, enjoy testing every chemical you interact with by tasting them.

>>9461045
Why are you arguing With a science denier? These People are fucking insane

>>9461055
>>I don't need anything more than just my senses to do science.
Who are you quoting?

>>9461036
>appearance judgements contradict science
Taxonomical classifications attempt to categorize individuals in groups by their ancestor-relation/differences. Appearance judgements influencing the judgements implies apparent phenotype defines genotype, which is wrong. race isn't science. Race is pseudoscience.
>>9461045
>we can classify races using genetic data alone
So you are abandoning the current definition of race?
>>9461022
>it's not
Both>>9461036 >>9461045 have understood it. I think you might have some mental problems. ;^)

>>9461087
>Appearance judgements influencing the judgements implies apparent phenotype defines genotype
Why does it imply that?

>>9461087
>Both>>9461036 >>9461045 have understood it. I think you might have some mental problems. ;^)
It's not. Can you represent the deduction symbolically? Your argument is very muddled as it currently stands.

>>9461087
>So you are abandoning the current definition of race?
What definition are you working with?

>>9461099
The current definition of science. In the other thread: Well, a researcher in 2016:
>"In the wake of the sequencing of the human genome in the early 2000s, genome pioneers and social scientists alike called for an end to the use of race as a variable in genetic research (1, 2). Unfortunately, by some measures, the use of race as a biological category has increased in the postgenomic age (3). Although inconsistent definition and use has been a chief problem with the race concept, it has historically been used as a taxonomic categorization based on common hereditary traits (such as skin color) to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes. "
Wikipedia:
"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits."
>>9461097
Boy, your brainlet way of discussion is not effective. This is my last answer.

>>9461113
>Boy, your brainlet way of discussion is not effective.
I'm not a "boy".

>>9461113
>Boy, your brainlet way of discussion is not effective. This is my last answer.
Can you represent the deduction symbolically? Your argument is very muddled as it currently stands.

>>9461113
>The current definition of science.
So race is science.

>>9461127
Except race contradicts science. Thus, race isn't science. Are you the retard asking intuitive questions?

>>9461131
>Except race contradicts science.
If old science is contradicted then you throw it out as outdated.

>>9461144
>genotype defines phenotype is incorrect
Are you the same retard who can't get intuitive conclusions?

>>9461147
>>genotype defines phenotype is incorrect
Who are you quoting?

>>9461147
>Are you the same retard who can't get intuitive conclusions?
The intuitive conclusion is that if race science contradicts some older scientific theory, then the older one is thrown out as outdated.

>>9461148
Who are you quoting?

>>9461144
What you aren't understanding is that in this situation race is the old science that was thrown out.

>>9461151
>Who are you quoting?
see >>9461147
>>genotype defines phenotype is incorrect

>>9461153
> race is the old science
So race is science.

>>9461157
No jackass see the post I quoted it was thrown out because it isn't backed up by research race is arbitrary as fuck

>>9461058
You only use one sense to determine "race".

>>9461167
>No jackass see the post I quoted it was thrown out because it isn't backed up by research race is arbitrary as fuck
Do you need to swear? It really invalidates your post.

>>9461170
>You only use one sense to determine "race".
Wrong.

>>9461157
Alchemy is science
Taxonomy is science
Astrology is science

>>9461170
>You only use one sense to determine "race".
Have you never smelled a black person?

>>9461174
OK what do you use?

>>9461171
Yes when you fail to understand simple concepts and ask a clearly redundant question you need to be called a jackass.

Faggot

>>9461182
>Faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>9461182
>Yes when you fail to understand simple concepts and ask a clearly redundant question you need to be called a jackass.
No answer to the question has been given, hence the question is not redundant.

Next?

>>9461183
Where do you see homophobia faggot?

>>9461189
>Where do you see homophobia faggot?
"Faggot" is a homophobic slur.

>>9460143
>OMG RACE CANT BE REAL CAUSE KKK AND THINGS I DONT LIKE AND VIOLENCE

Low-IQ posters need to be removed.

>>9461186
no one is going to answer your question because a simple google search will do so

>>9461191
No it isn't faggot quit trying to change the meaning of words to suit you

>>9461181
>OK what do you use?
You can identify different races by smell.

>>9461193
>No it isn't faggot quit trying to change the meaning of words to suit you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Homophobic_slurs

>>9461193
>no one is going to answer your question because a simple google search will do so
No, you refuse to answer because it debunks your "argument". The question is not redundant.

Next?

>>9461195
Bullshit.

>>9460161
that explains a lot

>>9461195
Please, God, someone do a legit study on this.

>>9460161
Don't respond to this tranny. This "thing" has been ruining several threads with this bait.

>>9461205
>Bullshit.
You must have grown up in a homogeneous community. Have you never smelled a black person? A Vietnamese person? An Indian? I can tell who's walking behind me on a sidewalk before I even turn around and look at them.

>>9461198
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability

>>9461201
I don't have an argument I merely explained to you what you failed to understand from the other anon's argument

>>9461213
>Don't respond to this tranny.
I'm not a "tranny".

>>9461217
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability
What does this have to do with "faggot" being a homophobic slur?

>>9461217
>I don't have an argument
Oh, it shows.

> I merely explained to you what you failed to understand from the other anon's argument
The other anon is simply attacking a strawman, there's nothing difficult to understand about it.

>>9461223
>strawman
Already refuted by >>9461113

>>9461226
>Already refuted by >>9461113
Wrong.

Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461218
shut up tranny

>>9461221
quit spamming the board

>>9461223
>>9461240
what exactly is your fucking argument then?

>>9461257
>what exactly is your fucking argument then?
Do you need to swear?

>>9461226

>>9461113
refutes absolutely fucking nothing, if you think a couple of fringe scientists, wanting something politically upsetting to be ignored are to be listened to unconditionally, then you need to fucking figure out what proof means

>>9461257
>quit spamming the board
Quit being homophobic.

>>9461260
S
U
C
C

M
Y

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

C
O
C
K

swearing doesnt take away from an argument

>>9461257
>shut up tranny
I'm not a "tranny".

>>9461240
Wrong again. Have you misread my post?
>>9461113

>>9461266
>swearing doesnt take away from an argument
Wrong.

In fact, it invalidates your post.

>>9461268
>Wrong again. Have you misread my post?
>>>9461113
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461260
see >>9461266

>>9461263
quit being a faggot no one is being homophobic

>>9461267
shut up tranny

>>9461269
t. butthurt retard

>>9461272
>quit being a faggot no one is being homophobic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Homophobic_slurs

>>9461271
That's not what that post was pointing out. You are wrong.

>>9461269
>In fact, it invalidates your post.
no it doesnt, i can say 1+1 =2 fuck you and still be right you insufferable waste of oxygen

This thread is starting to sink to /b/ levels of trolling.

/thread

Just let it die.

>>9461283
Pseudoscience lovers like to shit up every thread they don't like. What did you expect?

>>9461279
>That's not what that post was pointing out.
Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).

Next?

>>9461287
>Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).
This is wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461273
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability

>>9461293
>This is wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).

>>9461301
>Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).
Wrong again. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461294
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability
What does this have to do with "faggot" being a homophobic slur?

>>9461306
>Wrong again. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).

>>9461308
Wrong again. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461311
>Wrong again. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).

>>9461307
it has to do with your predicament and you should spend time researching that instead of trying to virtue signal on a Mongolian Bread forum faggot

>>9461313
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461323
>it has to do with your predicament and you should spend time researching that instead of trying to virtue signal on a Mongolian Bread forum faggot
Why do you think this is a "virtue signal"?

>>9461325
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Of course it doesn't point that out, because no one has made the argument, which is why you're arguing against a strawman (which is a logical fallacy).

>>9461328
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

this thread is now officially impossible to read, please take a second to restate what the fuck you are talking about

>>9461337
>please take a second to restate what the fuck you are talking about
Do you need to swear?

>>9461337
>this thread is now officially impossible to read, please take a second to restate what the fuck you are talking about
Just talking about how arguing against "phenotype defines genotype" is a strawman (a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy)), hence invalidates your "argument".

>>9461348
Where?

>>9461355
>Where?
I'm not sure what you mean.

>>9461348
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>>9461361
>Just talking about how arguing against "phenotype defines genotype" is a strawman (a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy)), hence invalidates your "argument".
Where?

>>9461368
>Where?
I'm not sure what you mean.

>>9461365
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
I said nothing about your conclusion, just that your "argument" is invalidated. Try reading what you link before linking it.

Next?

>>9461372
See>>9461113

>>9461393
>See>>9461113
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461395
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

how many times will you two repeat yourselves

>>9461407
I think we are three though. I just came back after a while.

>>9461404
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461407
>how many times will you two repeat yourselves
Until an argument is made that isn't attacking a strawman.

>>9461419
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461422
See>>9461113

>>9461426
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461435
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461443
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461472
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461484
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461509
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

>>9461517
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9460013
no. black males naturally produce more estrogen. this makes them emotional and violent. while there is a link between testosterone and violence there seems to be a lack of rational behavior linked to estrogen

amy ways it made white males more passive and black males more violent. the violent crime statistics prove that black males were more responsible for more murders % wise than the years before 2016 in 2016. 7 times more likely to murder some one than a white man

>>9461521
Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.

phenotype is caused by genotype, so their is absolutely no issue in classifying groups based on their phenotypes, especially considering how much easier it is to identify phenotype rather than genotype.

Using that logic does not imply that phenotypes impact genotypes, its the exact opposite

>>9461652
nature vs nurture
it's a pretty deep rooted debate
can't just ignore it

>>9461652
Wrong. The fact that using phenotype based categorizations skipping genotype rigor, is claimed as science, is an erroneous judgement. Race is not science.

>>9461663
>is an erroneous judgement.
All youve been doing this entire thread is making an erroneous judgment that phenotype isnt a useful factor.

If we can study it we can call it a science, and we can sure as shit study phenotype and how it affects groups

Stop yelling that phenotype is useless, it is the DIRECT consequence of the genomes. If you say "you cant determine a tree by how it looks, or by how its leaves look" you need to show that there is some sort of inconsistency that arises with doing so.
If you fail to do that then I can know you have nothing of value to add to the thread and are only interested in pursuing a political agenda rather than trying to find the truth

>>9461673
>more taxonomy
There has been more than 100 failed attempts at denying such implication. Now that you've finally accepted it you mention a taxonomy analogy of validation? Are you stupid?

>>9461678

>>9461673
Im a new anon, i havent finally accepted anything

>>9461679
Genomic consequences aren't as simple. The variance between recessive, dominant, epigenetics among other lesser stuff, shows that there is not fundamental equivalence of genotype variance and phenotype manifestation.

Taxonomy is based also in the same way of classification.

>random mutations
>two species are now more genetically similar
>same species lol

>>9460152
I am a doctor and I do consider race: aboriginals are much morr likely to have rheumatic heart disease, negroids more likely to have chronic kidney disease, Ashkenazi jews more likely to have g6p deficiency and so on. I would chew you out if you considered sickle cell crisis in the asian pt with abdominal pain, but commend you if you recognised it in the patient from sub saharan Africa. Race is extremely useful clinically and to reject a tool because you find it distasteful is just uselessly and pointlessly crippling yourself

>>9461704
yeah but sickle cell is only in small population of Africans
not really reflective of "black" as a race
you see?

>>9461553
>Wrong. That post wasn't pointing out that.
Unless you can point to anyone making the argument that "Race classification is influenced by a judgement of apparent features" implies that "apparent phenotype defines genotype" then you have indeed been arguing against a strawman ((which is a logical fallacy)).

>>9461337
No swearing on our Christian board >:(

>>9461717
How are you defining Africans here? If you mean Egyptians, and North Africans and Somalians and Subsaharan as all being Africans, which they are, but neglecting to see them as genetically diverse, even racially diverse by dint of the fact that you don't recognise the classification of race, then we are talking at cross purposes here.

>>9461552
>7 times more likely to murder some one than a white man
One study of violent behavior I've seen that takes this into account is the warrior gene variant. The difference in frequency correlates with difference in crime rates, however, it's only in 5% of black males, not most. It's kind of like sickle cell. I'm not sure what implies the average is responsible for violent crimes, you'd only end up increasing the amount of whites who murder if you insist upon keeping the difference the same. Shiet you can look at crime stats and come to the conclusion it's not even close to most black males. I've never heard of them having more estrogen.

>>9461799
like from Africa, the continent

>>9460050
>The nepalese paki race, the cambodian thai race, the iraqui race...lol
What's wrong with that? The graph clearly shows categories.

>>9461872
not that anon, but like this?

>>9461896
No like Africans from Africa. Like after the industrial revolution.
that's what I was implying
anyway I'm just shitposting at this point
ttyl, I must stop wasting time