/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7733911]

Why is all scientific research on race banned?

[Anonymous No.7733936]

All people relevant to science / in charge are PC

[Anonymous No.7733937]

It's not actually. Many ethnic studies still segragate by something related to "race". Put because it doesn't perfectly fits /pol/ or tumblers narrative they cherry pick abd ignore.

[Anonymous No.7733941]

>>7733911

It'd hurt feelings and incite a new race war because niggers and spics don't understand that science is impartial to their special snowflake mentality,

Well, that and they'd lose a vast majority (see: all) of their excuses for why whites and Asians (in general) are grossly advanced in society compared to them.

[Anonymous No.7733962]

>>7733911
Race baiting?
Marginalized Whitey?

[Anonymous No.7733974]

>>7733911
It isn't actually.

[Anonymous No.7734000]

>>7733911
It isn't but /pol/ says that the Jews create fake research.

[Anonymous No.7734005]

It's not banned, but race is a biologically useless concept, so it's not used in that respect. (Basically, for any definition of race, you can't look at a particular person's DNA and use that to consistently classify them into races.) It is used still in sociological/criminalogical/gender/other soft scientific studies, because people do identify with various races, and that can be important.

[Anonymous No.7734021]

>>7733974
>>7734000
>>7733937
It absolutely is pretty much banned.

Kevin Mitchell, a professor of genetics at Trinity College Dublin who said he has engaged in dialogue with Hsu on the matter, also argued that research can’t be divorced from its potential implications. “Some would argue it is not the place of scientists to decide the ethical issues – it is our job just to do the science,” he wrote in reference to the physicist's research. “If society abuses it, well, that is not our fault. This is a case where I strongly disagree – we cannot disentangle the moral issues from the scientific ones. It is too easy to use scientific findings to justify policies that would otherwise be deemed abhorrent; too easy, as [David] Hume noted, to mistakenly derive a prescription of how things ought to be from a description of how they are.” Mitchell said via e-mail that "I think people are calling Richwine and, to a lesser extent, Hsu, eugenicists, because their public statements seem to favor eugenics."
Nita Farahany, professor of law, philosophy, genome sciences and policy at Duke University School of Law offered a nuanced opinion: “I think researchers should be careful about the conclusions that they draw. Studying the genetic and environmental contributions to intelligence (if one could agree on what that means) – or IQ scores – does not link Dr. Hsu to inappropriate conclusions drawn by other researchers.” But, she said, “I do think that researchers have a duty to consider how their research will be used, to understand the implications of their research for society and to help safeguard against scientific misuse.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/13/debate-report-immigration-leads-scrutiny-harvard-dissertation

[Anonymous No.7734027]

>>7734005
Completely False you stupid social sciences fuck.
..no matter what genetic markers you choose: SNPs, STRs, no matter how you choose them: randomly or based on their "informativeness", it is relatively easy to classify DNA into the correct continental origin. Depending on the marker types (e.g., indel vs. microsatellite), and their informativeness (roughly the distribution differences between populations), one may require more or less markers to achieve a high degree of accuracy. But, the conclusion is the same: after a certain number of markers, you always succeed in classifying individuals according to continental origin.

Thus, the emergent pattern of variation is not at all subjectively constructed: it does not deal specifically with visible traits (randomly chosen markers could influence any trait, or none at all), nor does it privilege markers exhibiting large population differences. The structuring of humanity into more or less disjoint groups is not a subjective choice: it emerges naturally from the genomic composition of humans, irrespective of how you study this composition. Rather than proving that race is skin-deep, non-existent, or unimportant, modern genetic science is both proving that it is in fact existent, but also sets the foundation for the study of its true importance, which is probably somewhere in between the indifference of the sociologists and the hyperbole of the racists.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/04/prediction-of-continent-of-origin-using.html

[Anonymous No.7734033]

>>7734005

[Anonymous No.7734037]

>>7734005
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030236

[Anonymous No.7734041]

Let's just agree that anybody who watches anime is a subhuman

[Anonymous No.7734050]

>>7733911
It isn't, they just have a policy of being strictly factual and staying away from politics and drama.

If you wanted to you could probably pour through scientific studies and find something that partly resembles your racist theories, but you lack the expertise to do so, and no academic who has built a career on this is going to bother doing so, they are more interested in important things like curing disease or making money.

What is more important? Being able to afford a nice holiday with your family or trolling SJWs?

[Anonymous No.7734053]

>>7734027
>continental origin
>implying this is race
Also, you are wrong about a lot of that.

I know this because I am not, as you suggest, a social sciences fuck, but rather someone who is actually knowledgeable about this field.

In particular,
> after a certain number of markers, you always succeed in classifying individuals according to continental origin.
This is incorrect, and that's with respect to any non-trivial classfication (like sex... which is actually not all that trivial either, but that's for another day). There are no alles, polymorphisms, nor sets of sequences that are universal in any one set of humans and absent in all members of any other set, and this has been demonstrated numerous times in the published literature.

[Anonymous No.7734062]

>>7732114>>7734053
welp i guess black people from africa and asian people from the far east are all complete coincidence and genetics a shit

we solved the mystery, reddit!

[Anonymous No.7734079]

>>7733911
It's not. It just doesn't lead to any significant results, so nobody cares about it.

[Anonymous No.7734192]

>>7734053
>What are clusters

It's like saying there are no test score differences because some white people get low scores

[Anonymous No.7734428]

We should "find" some corpses.
One is white, one will be black.
We compare the skeletal proportions, internal organs, etc. and prove the differences.

Then we wait for the riots.

[Anonymous No.7735348]

>>7734050
>It isn't, they just have a policy of being strictly factual and staying away from politics and drama.
So gender studies and political correctness will now be dumped from each and every university? Good to know.

[Anonymous No.7735998]

>>7734027
>which is probably somewhere in between the indifference of the sociologists and the hyperbole of the racists.
Such a good understanding of the principles but just all like geneticists you hyperbolize our understanding of it.
Can we de novo predict a centennial? Can we predict degenerative diseases like MS? Let me answer it clearly - we can't. The ones we can predict are incredibly simple easy to understand diseases.

Do we understand intelligence? No, all intelligence-linked SNPs have proven to be weakly correlated (1-2 IQ points). Phenotype is still uniquely apparent in the individual and a phenomenon very different from the raw read out of genes. Maybe when we have a better model of RNA stability, and various other post-read states we will be able to predict an individual's propensity for obesity, etc, but right now we can't. If you want to you can cherry pick a study beyond huntington's or some very basic disease and i'll show you why you'd be wrong.

[Anonymous No.7736053]

>>7733911
It's not banned

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnomedicine

http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/correspondence/the-use-of-ethnic/11135081.article

[Anonymous No.7736134]

>>7734027
The paper talks about population genetics. The blog does not (note that only retards listen to blogs). Continential origin is not the same thing as traditional race.

>>7734021
That's social science.

>>7734033
>>7734037
>induring retard who doesn't understand the research making retarded inferences about it.

[Anonymous No.7736140]

>>7734192
Just because one can use clusters to make inferences about continential origin does not mean that those clusters have a 1:1 relationship with continent nor that training the algorithm on the same data set multiple times will produce the same clusters.

lrn2clusters, retard.

[Anonymous No.7736146]

>>7734053
This.

>>7733911
Race hasn't been considered science since we developed modern genetics proved it was pretty much garbage. We have since replaced it with a more generalized concept, population genetics.

Racial science is now at best a social science and sits alongside women's studies. It's not banned but no one takes that shit seriously.

[Anonymous No.7736150]

>>7734428
Black lives matter though

[Anonymous No.7736157]

>>7734053
>like sex... which is actually not all that trivial either
What the fuck are you on about

[Anonymous No.7736180]

>>7733911
Because muh Humanities

[Anonymous No.7736218]

>>7733911
It's not banned per se, but seems anathema in many fields. iirc One of the writers of The Bell Curve gets into potential reasons why here:
https://youtu.be/6lsa_97KIlc?t=1m39s

[Anonymous No.7736227]

>>7736218
>The Bell Curve
Literally a pop-science book.

[Anonymous No.7736239]

>>7736157

Not that guy but I'll bite

The metabolic pathways for "male" and "female" versions of any human being are both fully expressed in that human's DNA; sex differentiation has very little to do with "chromosomes" except on a correlative level.

In brief: Dmrt1 produces metabolic byproducts that either cover FOXL2 in chromatin, or deprive FOXL2 of ribosomes. Sex differentiation is caused by the ratio of Dmrt1 to FOXL2, essentially.

Anyone parroting the "XY versus XX!" meme is either a shitposter from /pol/ or totally illiterate in biology.

[Anonymous No.7736245]

>>7734000
[citation needed]
No one ever said that unless they were stupid and/or shitposting.

[Anonymous No.7736265]

>>7736134
>Calling some one a retard without refuting their data

[Anonymous No.7736274]

Let's set the word "race" aside for a moment.

What are the factual differences between people from different regions? I suppose that people from East Asia, Aboriginals, Europeans, and Congoid Africans have some differences between them.

Why, for example, are black people better runners? Every 100m final is almost always entirely black.

[Anonymous No.7736288]

>>7736227
Thus making it unresearched?

[Anonymous No.7736327]

>>7736274
>Every 100m final is almost always entirely black.
You're right, but you fucked up
>is almost always entirely black
Not just black, but from specific regions in africa.
Meaning it's not a racial thing, because blacks in general aren't that proficient, it's a regional thing.
Dumb shit like what you posted is why smart people say "there is no scientific basis for race" because you idiots take specific shit and generalize it to apply to people it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.7736341]

>>7733911
It's unethical at this point.

The knowledge gained isn't worth adding fuel to the fire.

[Anonynous No.7736769]

>>7736245
>No one ever said that unless they said that.

[Anonymous No.7736808]

>>7733941
>It'd hurt feelings and incite a new race war because niggers and spics don't understand that science is impartial to their special snowflake mentality
Jesus do you go outside or just react to buzzfeed articles.

[Anonymous No.7736822]

facts and truths aren't always nice, and people's feelings are put above all else.

[Anonymous No.7736827]

>>7736227
I wouldnt call it pop-science. Maybe just popular.

[Anonymous No.7737489]

>>7736265
The issue isn't the data. It's the inferences anon is drawing on them. In particular this has nothing to do with race, it's population genetics.

>>7736288
It's still just commentary. It's no more rigorous than the Bill O'Reilly show.

[Anonymous No.7737516]

>>7733911
its not banned at all, it's plainly out there. You should just use special terminology not to hurt any inferior peoples feelings. Like if a race has substantially worse intelligence, congnitive skills and critical thinking you shouldn't just call them dumb. Being correct is not enough to be heard and respected in media, you also have to be considerate to other people. So instead you can use terms like "underprivileged" when talking about their intelligence.

[Anonymous No.7737522]

>>7737516
Are there charts for the other SATs tests?

Would be nice to see if the results are the same for shit other than math. If that were the case then that would be sufficient proof that anything below white is so inferior you might aswell off yourself so that you are not a burden on society.

[Anonymous No.7737533]

>>7737522
> anything below white is so inferior you might aswell off yourself so that you are not a burden on society.
See thats the kind of offensive tones we don't want addressed towards the people who are intellectually underprivileged.
Asians are the shit at math. Whites are okay too. And it gets gradually worse after that. I'm sure people who are good at math won't score worse at physics, chemistry or any other branch that requires mental process and problem solving.

[Anonymous No.7737539]

>>7736341
This, there are some facts we don't need to, and should not know.

[Anonymous No.7737542]

>>7737539
speak for yourself you anti-science ethics freak

[Anonymous No.7737545]

>>7736341
>>7737539
>>7737542

obvious samefig

[Anonymous No.7737546]

>>7737533
>>7737522
nice dubs, but this is social science.

>>7737516
>posting social science
>not even dubs

[Anonymous No.7737578]

>>7736808
underrated comment

[Anonymous No.7737598]

>>7736341
Doing research and experimentation on animals is also unethical.
Doing drug trials on volunteered homeless people which can leave them permanently impaired is also unethical.
Genome editing and cloning is also unethical.

You and your kind who keep trying to insert "ethics" into science in order to supress factual findings and progress don't have any place in any modern scientific community. Go back to the church where you praise ethics all you want.

[Anonymous No.7737614]

>>7737489
>this has nothing to do with race, it's population genetics.
lmao

[Anonymous No.7737638]

>>7737598
You're an idiot.
Ethics ≠ Morals.

Morals are just a factor of ethics.

Ethics is also a huge field you should probably read up on if you have any interest in science and aren't just trolling for keks.

[Anonymous No.7737644]

>>7737638

ethical
ˈɛθJk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
"ethical issues in nursing"
synonyms: moral

Morality is at the center of ethics you goon.

[Anonymous No.7737649]

>>7737598
Science without ethics would be an absolute nightmare for humanity. To rid science of ethics is to blind the scientist, it guides the researcher on how to best apply the fruit of his studies.

Take splitting of the atom in 1919. Now fast-forward to 1945, look how that research was applied--nuclear warfare. This is exactly why science needs ethics.

[Anonymous No.7737652]

>>7737644
Oh wow that settles everything.
You fucking ignorant tard.

The guiding principle is detriment must not overstep benefit, not muh pastors feelings are law.

[Anonymous No.7737657]

>>7737652
>must not overstep benefit

But whose benefit? At what cost do we pay for said benefit?

>pastors feelings are law
Now you show your true colors, your opinion is shit. You give the study of morality and ethics an opinion formed of association bias because you dislike Christianity.

At this point I'm not sure if it's worth replying to you--not sure just how much of your blinded opinions will ooze into your posts.

[Anonymous No.7737665]

>>7737657
I assumed you were the anon who told me to "go back to church".

And if you're actually interested in answers to you first question you can start by typing ethics into wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.7737670]

>>7737649
You're trying to label the military applications of science with the findings of science itself like they're the same thing. If some ethics retard like you somehow banned the atomic research because of its capabilities, we would still be clueless about the building blocks of the universe and still be centuries behind in scientific progress.

Sure the applications of the scientific research should be treaded carefully, but it's not in any way an excuse to ban or censor the research or fact-finding itself. You can only prosecute the people who used it for their own purposes in destructive means.

[Anonymous No.7737671]

>>7737665
I already handle ethics and philosophy pertaining to it. That said, wikipedia repeats my sentiment by dubbing it: ''moral philosophy.'' and that's exactly what it is.

It's frustrating to see counter-reactionary atheists or non-religious types who dismiss the importance of morality because they feel obligated to rebel against it because ''xtianity is st00pid!''

[Anonymous No.7737675]

>>7737671
...ok you're just fucking with me because your flat out lie is blatantly obvious.

You've never "handled ethics" even slightly.

Here's your reply. I hope it made your day.

[Anonymous No.7737676]

>>7737670
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Ethics should only get involved after the fact has been discovered. Prohibiting research is counter-intuitive as fuck.

That said, it's still worth critiquing the method of research. What resource does it exploit? Does it exploit animals? humans? There's a lot of ins and a lot of outs.

[Anonymous No.7737679]

>>7737675
The fuck are you even objecting to at this point? The english dictionary implies it's morally centered, your suggestion of looking it up on wikipedia reaffirms my statement--it's based on morality.

Let me ask you a question, why are you so afraid of morality?

[Anonymous No.7737684]

>>7737679
A hurf de durf, look at how dumb I'm being.

I read the the dictionary, I trick you, tee hee.

[Anonymous No.7737687]

>>7737684
I'm sorry that your false sense of 'ethics' clashed with objective consensus friend.

[Anonymous No.7737690]

>>7737687
> i decide what objective consensus is
:^)

[Anonymous No.7737692]

>>7737690
Now you're grasping. This is fun for me.

[Anonymous No.7737700]

>>7737692
> i-im not even mad guise pls believe me
there there kid

[Anonymous No.7737710]

>>7737700
Anyway, despite our disagreement, how you doing man?

[Anonymous No.7737712]

It hurts people's feelings and it's politically incorrect. Nowadays race studies are just semantics games. This thread is proof enough of that.

[Anonymous No.7737715]

>>7737710
good bro. just watched the spaceX launch. I'm glad Melonusk is doing well lately, no more fireworks

[Anonymous No.7737726]

>>7737715
It's pretty exciting that reusing rocket components will be standard isn't it? In my opinion space travel and NASA should be the top priority of government funding, but at least this method of launch manages to provide progress in the mission of space exploration.

Yo, if you could realistically set a goal for NASA's next mission, what would it be, where would you send a manned (or unmanned) rocket?