So is there a /sci/entific basis for race or not? I've seen graphs where ethnicities have been plotted out and it looks like it's real, but the science says that it isn't?Yes, I am a midwit.
>>16023380Rainbows are so fuzzy / poorly defined that colors don't exist.
>>16023393But there's still points where you can say that something is yellow, something is green or red or whatever
>>16023396That's racist. There are only people of color and people with white privilege.
>>16023380Race is real to a degreeScientists however will deny it as treating races equally is above being objective.To wholly deny race despite clear unobjectivity in doing so is still seen as objective based on the excuse that not every variable can be controlled.Raising different races from newborns in a first world multicultural society and studying them is still seen as unscientific because of "systematic racism" and "inherented trauma"It's the boogeyman they used to deny that any potential discrepancy in results are valid.
>>16023380Depends on how you view the subject matter. At the holistic level via populations, race does have a scientific basis due to probabilistic outcomes in how physical trait similarities and behavioral patterns emerge/maintain. Think pigmentation differences and cultural practices.At the reductionist level via individual genes or alle haplogroups, race doesn't have a scientific basis due to granular differences in how individuals or even ethnicities interact with the environment. Think how proneness to myopia can differentiate between ethnic groups within the same race and how even groupings of individuals within the same ethnic group can vary in myopic occurrence via occupations.To boil it down simply it is a resolution problem. The "realness" of race (and maybe humanity itself) changes by scale. If this wasn't the case personalized medicine and medical testing for human treatment by using animal models (like the fruit fly) wouldn't be feasible. So in short it's Yes and No.
The problem with doing racial studies in America is that the average American would probably think of someone like Muhammad Ali as 100% black even though he had Irish ancestors. Africa also contains the greatest amount of human genetic diversity, so it doesn't make sense to think of Africans as belonging to a single race.
>>16023380All races are arbitrary.That doesn't mean it is a scientifically valueless concept, because there are different degrees of arbitrariness (plus the fact a completely non-arbitrary definition is not possible, in almost anything in science).Consider this thought experiment: let us call a race called A. I include Swedes, Norwegians, Russians and Frenchmen in it.Now let us consider race B, which includes Swedes, Norwegians, Bantu, Han-Chinese, and North Sentinelese.Would you think A or B is more arbitrary? Which one allows you to talk about it in more interesting ways?
>>16023620>All races are arbitrary Evolution is not arbitrary though, so race also cannot be categorized in that manner then.