[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 114 KB, 326x326, kike killer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747297 No.9747297[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is Race science a respectable field?

>> No.9747298

define "Race"

>> No.9747302

No, its where white supremacist fantasies come to life and where you can use any skewed, bias or bullshit statistics you want to say any race you don't like is inferior or worthless.

Its not respectable and shouldn't be.

>> No.9747306

>>9747302
spotted der untermensch

>> No.9747316

On 4chan yes, in the mainstream world, no.

>> No.9747445
File: 47 KB, 768x768, DNFF3qZVoAEvICo-768x768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747445

>>9747298
and "field"

>> No.9747451

kill yourself amerimutt

>> No.9747455

>>9747302
>>9747316
>>9747451
found the liberals

>> No.9747464

>>9747451
>person proposes racist idea
>way to insult said person is to call them a mutt or multiracial
Yea, we are fighting racism with more racism.

>> No.9747480

>>9747464
>dude scientifically proven that other racists are inferior is RACIST lmao!!

>> No.9747484

>>9747302
It's "den Untermenschen", you mongrel.

>> No.9747491

>>9747455
Applesponge

>> No.9747494

Muh knee grows, muh spics, muh chinks

>> No.9747499
File: 51 KB, 680x544, standing-7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747499

German Shepherds are objectively superior to Chihuahuas. It's weird how many people lose their shit if you even hint about saying something similar about humans.

>> No.9747507

>>9747499
>objectively superior
what does this mean

>> No.9747508

>>9747507
It means that if you think it's not true, then you're a nigger.

>> No.9747536

>>9747507
Imagine being this dumb

>> No.9747548

>>9747297
No.

>> No.9747551

There's a special place in hell for people who try to stifle scientific inquiry into a given subject.
That includes "socially concerned" individuals who label the study of population differences as verboten because it's "problematic" and "might fuel racism".

>> No.9747561

>>9747551
Worlds most ironic post.

>> No.9747569

>>9747561
What's ironic about it?

>> No.9747577

>>9747484
But he was reffering to a single person hence das untermensch

>> No.9747579

>>9747298

Synonymous with the term sub-species when applied to humans.

>> No.9747580
File: 596 KB, 2048x1152, aubreydegrey.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747580

>>9747297
Curing aging is a more respectable field.

>> No.9747582

>>9747297
there is no field called "race science" respectable or no
>>9747302
jude

>> No.9747739

>>9747580
based Aubreyposter

>> No.9747756

>>9747297
The strange thing is all these race scientists popped up out of nowhere after "Brown vs Board of Education".

Back when people just took it on faith that niggers were inferior beasts of burden and didn't deserve human rights, they didn't need race scientists.

>> No.9747802

>>9747297
No. Especially so when you realize most Taxonomy is based upon the work of a religious wingnut with OCD. Even more rigorously defined species are still fundamentally arbitrary. Go into Genetics instead.

>> No.9747809

>>9747297
16 year olds from /pol/ and stormfront

>> No.9747810

>>9747756
It's probably because they started seeing calm, articulate, respectable black people on TV and in real life, so they needed more justification to keep hating them.

>> No.9747830

>>9747297
Injecting your ideology and agenda into science is not respectable

>> No.9747843

>>9747830
>>9747809
go back

>> No.9748146

>>9747507
This. Nothing is "superior" in biology. It presupposes a teleology that just isn't there.

>> No.9748160

>>9747297
It's called Physical Anthropology.

>> No.9748165

>>9747580
He looks like Rasputin.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/amateur-mathematician-cracks-decades-old-math-problem

>> No.9748399

>>9747302
spbp
Race science is complete and utter horseshit masquerading as something respectable.

>> No.9748405

Links debunking "race science":
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/12/05/problems-with-racial-realism-and-race-based-rhetoric/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/11/the-widespread-abuse-of-heritability/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/08/28/an-annotated-summary-of-c0nc0rdance-case-against-race-realism/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/12/27/abusing-heritability-libertarian-realist-edition/
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/02/08/abusing-heritability-libertarian-realist-edition-part-ii/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhW9j1dexPe2VJWr83ufZHaAlOiEGvaHe9ARUqmWNuA/edit?pageId=103762364464493166857

>> No.9748422

>>9748405
>rationalwiki
Dropped

>> No.9748431

>>9748422
>citations are provided
>I don't like the website presenting the information

>> No.9748447

>>9748431
>the opinion of cultural anthropologists matters
This is a science board. You can now get a percentage breakdown of your entire racial ancestry. Race is real. Deal with it.

Or fuck off and be a creationist somewhere else.

>> No.9748463

>>9747830
As opposed to leftists injecting their ideology and agenda into science?

>> No.9748465
File: 223 KB, 2047x788, chadrationalist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9748465

>>9748405
>>9748422

>> No.9748476
File: 812 KB, 1136x2200, mao-a gene.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9748476

>>9748405
And here are race realism FAQs and other HBD fundamentals:
https://www.unz.com/jman/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/
https://www.unz.com/jman/hbd-fundamentals/#race
https://www.unz.com/jman/the-five-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/
https://www.unz.com/jman/all-human-behavioral-traits-are-heritable/
https://www.unz.com/jman/the-behavioral-genetics-page/

>>9748431
Citations are also provided in the links above.

>> No.9748479

>>9748476
Have you read the citations? (I think I know the answer already)

>> No.9748481

>>9748447
A smattering of genetic markers, that’s all

>> No.9748490

>>9748479
Some of them. Have you read the citations in those RationalWiki articles?

>> No.9748492

>>9748476
Yet less than 5% of african-americans actually have this allele and virtually all african-americans have significant European ancestry anyway.

>> No.9748495

>>9748422
It's better sourced than Metapedia, faggot.

>> No.9748502

>>9748463
>A leftist is anyone who disagrees with me

>> No.9748505

>>9748481
No, that's not all, there are differences which cause significant biological differences.

>> No.9748510

>>9748502
It's generally leftists advocating Blank Stateism and advocating for censorship of people who believe in innate racial differences. Look at what happened to James Watson. Are you denying that these individuals are generally on the left of the political spectrum?

>> No.9748518

>>9748492
>Yet less than 5% of african-americans actually have this allele
And the majority of African Americans have the 3R version of the MAO-A gene, and both the 2R and 3R versions of the gene are vastly overrepresented among African Americans compared to Whites.

>> No.9748543

>>9747297
Race is real.

Black people look different than white people and are more prevalent to certain types of diseases.

>> No.9748545

>>9748476
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Unz has not passed peer review

>> No.9748546

>>9748545
Has RationalWiki?

>> No.9748547

>>9748510
>durr Watson wasn't mistaken and out of touch with current research, they're trying to silence him!!!
Which is more likely:
1. He is not keeping up with the current research, and thus made a massive mistake in talking about shit he knew nothing about:
or
2. There's a conspiracy to suppress James Watson.
Think carefully. Occam's Razor indicates #1.

>> No.9748548

>>9748546
No, but the studies they cite have.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756148/

>> No.9748551

>>9748490
I've read all citations. Unz is the one misrepresenting its sources.

>> No.9748554

>>9747297
you all know the truth about niggas and other melanine enriched individuals, does it matter?

>> No.9748555

>>9748547
Even if he were wrong, he was fired and forced to sell his nobel prize for money. I doubt there are many other subjects were being wrong generates such a backlash.

And of course if he was not wrong. Creationism is wrong.

>> No.9748556

>>9748543
>black people look different
This is your argument? Really?

>> No.9748557

>>9747297
Redpill me, /his/, are dog breeds a social construct?

>> No.9748560

>>9748545
>The variances of the distributions are much greater for the individual-to-individual comparisons (Figure 1A) than for the centroid-to-individual comparisons (Figure 1B).
Have you heard of Lewontin's Fallacy?

>> No.9748563

>>9748560
But it got published in a shitty noname journal! Therefore it's peer reviewed!

>> No.9748564

>>9748165
he is. immortal by accident now when technology grew hes trying to understand how it happened

>> No.9748566

>>9748560
Not an actual fallacy, see https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#.22Lewontin.27s_fallacy.22
So, there is no fallacy involved you retard.
>>9748557
>artificially selected types of dog are comparable to human beings
Stop with this stupid fucking argument.

>> No.9748568

>>9748547
>Occam's Razor indicates #1.
Why should Occam's Razor indicate #1? If you're using Solomonoff Induction to determine the priors of #1 and #2, I don't see why #2 should have a lower weight than #1.

>> No.9748575

>>9748560
>>9748566
Most modern racialists redefine race as a "genetic cluster" by continent which captures a fairly small amount of variation (<10%) between groups of populations. Molecular anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks are confused by this re-definition because it is so far removed from biological taxonomy, and the traditional meaning of race. Michael P. Muehlenbein writes:[111]

What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century — the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups.

>> No.9748577

you all alredy know the truth about niggas and other melanine enriched individuals, does it matter?

>> No.9748579

If race doesn't exist, then racism can't exist either. Yet, all these race-denialists get really angry when I call them niggers. Why is this?

>> No.9748582

>>9748560
>>9748575

The geographical pattern to human interpopulation variation, matches an almost continuous gradient/isolation-by-distance model[112][113][114][115][116][37] However much of this discontinuity is found within continents, not between them[43][117][118] — which again renders the ideas of (e.g.) "white" and "black" as irrelevant.

>> No.9748586

>>9748579
This argument is so fucking stupid
Racism is prejudice towards people based on perceived characteristics exclusive to "races." If the races aren't real, this prejudice does not automatically go away, you fucking idiot.

>> No.9748590

>>9748582
Racialists argue that while overall genetic variation between continental population divisions is <10%, this rather little human population structure still supports race classification (contra Lewontin, 1972[48]).

They quote Edwards (2003) who found by looking at how gene loci are correlated: "probability of misclassification falls off as the number of gene loci increases". It is notable Edwards in his paper does not dispute Lewontin's statistical data on various blood polymorphisms, writing: "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin's statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification". As a result, as Marks (2010) explains, there is no "Lewontin fallacy":[119]
“”Geographical correlations are far weaker hypotheses than genetically discrete races, and they obviously exist in the human species (whether studied somatically or genetically).
What Lewontin (or Marks) and Edwards are discussing are two completely different things. Of course genetic correlations exist which can pinpoint someone's geographical ancestry, but as Marks asks: "What is unclear is what this has to do with race", and concludes: "Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups [races] do not exist in the human species, and Edwards's critique does not contradict that interpretation" (emphasis added). What this means is that Edwards is re-defining the race concept to a far weaker hypothesis, which is not how race is commonly understood in biological taxonomy: Fujimura 2014 writes:[114]
“”[I]f one wants to measure the meaningfulness of differences between groups with different geographic ancestries, one needs to use a “proportion of variation” approach. This approach compares genetic variation among individuals within groups to the genetic variation between these groups. Ironically, Edwards’s (2003) reported findings confirm Lewontin’s (1972).

>> No.9748593

>>9748590
What is the significance of the "proportion of variation" (FST) approach? It measures phylogenetic 'treeness' via genetic differentiation[44] i.e. whether populations reflect a common evolutionary history or intraspecific distinctive lineage, which is taxonomically meaningful. Human populations however "have such little structure that ‘treeness’ is not demonstrated and phylogenetic models are invalid".[17] As Lewontin 1974 himself writes:[120]

The taxonomic division of the human species into races places a completely disproportionate emphasis on a very small fraction of the total of human diversity. That scientists as well as nonscientists nevertheless continue to emphasize these genetically minor differences and find new “scientific” justifications for doing so is an indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge.

>> No.9748595

>>9748560
Now here, read this and you'll see that "Lewontin's fallacy" doesn't fucking exist and racists just misinterpreted things:
>>9748575
>>9748582
>>9748590
>>9748593

>> No.9748619

>>9748566
>rationalwiki again
Are you an admin there or something?

>muh dogs are incomparable
Why? It's exactly the same thing. Dogs were selectively bred by humans, just as humans were selectively bred by differing environments and geographical isolation.

>> No.9748624

>>9748595
No matter how much you copy paste, noggers will still be dumb. Rekt.

>> No.9748628

>>9748590
>Of course genetic correlations exist which can pinpoint someone's geographical ancestry, but as Marks asks: "What is unclear is what this has to do with race",
This marks guy doesn't seem very smart

>> No.9748631

whatever I quit

>> No.9748645

But niggas are faster

>> No.9748654

>>9747297
Is parapsychology a respectable field?

>> No.9748655
File: 421 KB, 498x380, CUBE___hdwtser98es69.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9748655

>race science

>> No.9748661

>>9747297
>anthropology, human evolution, genomics - pinpointing concrete biological differences that cause race (which is a social construct)
yes
>eugenics - validating the cultural construct of race with psuedo-scientific correlations
no