Race vs Biology

Out of curiosity for Sup Forums's rebuttal to genetics and the lack of a scientific definition of race I submit the following as a biofag:

As aforementioned, there is no objective definition of 'black' or 'white' and so any statistics become meaningless because a white person can identify as black and a black person can identify as white for the purposes of census, thus corrupting the data.

Secondly, if we somehow enforced a genetic test for being black or white, to make the data 'pure' we would find ourselves quickly stumped because simply coming from Africa or Europe leads to a whole lot of different genetic markers which would be internally inconsistent. It causes us to ask, 'what exactly is white, or black, biologically?'

To use a metaphor it is like trying to make 'american' a race, but on a smaller, more subtle scale.

So what does biology recognize? Tribes, or 'families' which represent small populations with genetic commonality and descent from other tribes. These do not exactly correspond to black or white either since biology holds that we all came from Africa. Thus we must all have some relation to an African tribe on some level.

I'm looking for a rebuttal that doesn't descend into 'muh statistical differences' because it is addressed in point one.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_term
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

How's your first year of college going, you privileged white idiot?

>there is no objective definition of 'black' or 'white' because a white person can identify as black and a black person can identify as white for the purposes of census, thus corrupting the data.

>Race statistics are wrong because they could be wrong

You have just failed your module

>ad hominem
Not a rebuttal

>muh strawman
If there is no objective definition of race, and personal identification is allowed, regardless of genetic test (for which there isn't even a scientific definition of 'black') then the statistics can only be corrupted.

So what? Virtually anything can be corrupted

Doesn't mean they are discardable

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_term

It's usually accounted for in more PC statistics

To clarify:
If your argument on races possessing different intelligence rests on the idea of a scientific definition of race, then you are without support because science has moved on from the subjective concept of race and you are only going to be arguing from a subjective premise.

>59
Shit Guinea get it together.

How can a country even fucking function.
>60 is generally considered the IQ needed to be able to harvest vegetables

No wonder they're starving.

Is 'american' a race? If it is, then 'black' vs 'white' intelligence tests would be similar to comparing the IQ of brazil (as a race) to americans.

This is the type of data you are working with, metaphorically speaking.

Arguing that black people are X vs white people is just as meaningless biologically.

Not a subjective premise necessarily. Science isn't the exhaustive definition of objective you know

Unless you divinize science or something

If you're making the argument that science has subjectivity then you'd need to provide an example. I was speaking of the hard sciences specifically, I know that psychology for example is an orgy of subjectivity.

It may be meaningless biologically, but it's not in ANY way meaningless statistically

The differences are factual, regardless of how whether or not you can call the groups races or not

And some differences can factually be innate and immutable

There are only subjects applying the scientific method (and computers programmed by subjects). You'll never gonna achieve objectivity per se, you only reach a consensus wherefore you minimise individual subjectivity

If the biology doesn't support it, then what do the statistics mean then?

For example, if report A says that 'blacks have 10 points less IQ than whites' if there is no objective, scientific definition of race then you're really saying that 'people who identify as black on a census scored 10 points less than those who identify as white.'

Taking that to the extreme, we could argue that ticking the 'black' box on census lowers your IQ by 10 points. See the problem?

Are you saying then, that the tools which collect the data are not objective? Because to my mind your argument follows only if the data is reliant upon the scientist and not his tools.

Black lives matter you racist ass cracker. How dare you try to marginalize our suffering by suggesting that we're the same as whitey

>Taking that to the extreme, we could argue that ticking the 'black' box on census lowers your IQ by 10 points. See the problem?

Correlation between two terms does not necessitate causation between them

Most people (except Latinos ticking White in America) use their common sense to gauge their race. People with predominant African ancestry will almost always tick Black. Both of these you can statistically be gauged as well (the rate of concurrence between geographical ancestry and race)

>you can statistically gauge*

>because a white person can identify as black and a black person can identify as white for the purposes of census, thus corrupting the data.

You say this as if it's a common occurance aroung the world, but really this kind of insanity is particular to North America, specifically the United States of America.
>pic related

In most other jurisdictions, people who identify as races that they are not are considered loonies.

Bugger off trollnog

The tools (like the computers I talked about in that post) are designed by subjects as well

The only way you can be truly objective is if you somehow stopped being a subject (to kill yourself)

>the rate of concurrence between geographical ancestry and race *identification

Durr

"Science moved on"

You mean got streamlined to be more PC.
There are clear genetic markers subjective to heritage. Its very easy to define black, white asian etc...

I know correlation does not imply causation, this was meant to illustrate a point.

However you are still relying on a subjective argument when you say that people will intuitively know their race. That isn't a scientific argument. For example, a 'black' man with fair skin will identify as white. Is he black or white according to you?

>How can a country even fucking function.

They don't function they exist. That's about it.

>In most other jurisdictions, people who identify as races that they are not are considered loonies.
They're looked at as batshit insane here, too.
This liberal asshole just won't admit it.

>muh conspiracy

You know creationists argue this way about evolution, right? Same with HIV denialists.

If you have to blame the science, you pretty much dodged the argument.

if there is no objective definition of race, then we need to immediately strike all race specific laws from our books under equal protection under the law.

But seriously, objectivity is not a binary switch user. With well designed tools, we can generate repeatable, statistically valid results. It doesn't need to be axiomatic to be scientifically useful.

For example, trying to apply the results of a study on a self identified black population in Texas to a self identified black population in Brazil is risky.

You are looking at a particular occurrence of this, a political one. If you live in south america for example, 'white' people are full of 'black' and native blood. They only have fair skin. They identify as white.

America has this as well.

You are looking at a particular occurrence of this, a political one. If you live in south america for example, 'white' people are full of 'black' and native blood. They only have fair skin. They identify as white.

America has this as well.

>its this thread again

Explain haplogroups please, OP

>I know correlation does not imply causation, this was meant to illustrate a point.

It was kind of a non sequitur though, for the sake of rhetorics

>However you are still relying on a subjective argument when you say that people will intuitively know their race. That isn't a scientific argument. For example, a 'black' man with fair skin will identify as white. Is he black or white according to you?

I don't really have to rely on that. Like I say here (towards the end) you can statistically factor this in as well

I know statistics is not a natural science, but it is a formal science, so I'd say I'm being scientific

>You are looking at a particular occurrence of this, a political one.
Just an illustration that American racial relations and the perception of race in America is not representative for any other place in the world.
>If you live in south america for example, 'white' people are full of 'black' and native blood.
That would make them 'not white' though, tbqhwy.
>They only have fair skin. They identify as white.
As I said: American weirdness.
>America has this as well.
America has a stupid definition of what it means to be white. This was known already....

>The original peoples of NORTH AFRICA, the MIDDLE EAST and Europe
>White
>t. US census


Having fair skin alone does not make one European.

>HIV denialist
what the fuck is even that?

He means like the dudes in africa who say that Aids is caused by anti aids drugs and not HIV.

Oh nigga please.

How many public speaking jobs would a scientist get on this topic if he wouldnt tell the PC brigade exactly what they wanted to hear? Its the same with global warming. No conspiracy needed if we just create a selective process to just tell us what we want to believe.

Believe it or not, one of our professors in the university clearly stated that he is skeptical of the global warming problem due to lack of sound scientific evidence. It was refreshing to see someone redpilled about that specific topic desu senpai.

And i can guarantee you he will never get to lead a publically funded think-tank on the subject with that attitude.

I know it's bait, but...

This study is not enough to show anything. The authors themselves say that.

becuase Institutionalized speciesism

Lets make a deal

You show us a single study that suggests there are no significant measurable IQ differences between ethnicities and we all stop being such racist shitlords.

Were those samples too small? How's this one?

Genetically we're different underneath. It's just medically factual.

One more.

To take your argument then, at its conclusion, 'black race' just as 'white race' is ever-shifting just as the gene pool of its occupants is. Thus any conclusion drawn from IQ tests, criminality, etc. Is ultimately meaningless as well.

>ethnicities
That is a largely cultural definition

But for the sake of good faith I'll assume you mean groups of peoples with common features.

I would never argue that there are no physical biological differences between them. I would however argue that any attempt to measure those differences by scientific racists is fundamentally flawed because you operate from incorrect assumptions about populations, gene pools, and so on.

I already addressed this argument in my first point and second point. Try arguing without using self-identifying racial data and an unscientific notion of race.

Did anyone actually check this facts?
I mean LITERALLY 0 ?

I can understand that, I would not rape a fucking nigger, but ... 0 ?

It's sadder then if the numbers were really low tbqh

>White man are for building and fighting

>Niggers are for running

but can white man jump?

You have no concept of how science works, or the profession.

For starters, scientists don't have a job of public speaking, but of research instead. Public speaking is ancillary.

Secondly, science has always been about breaking down religiously-held and dogmatically supported ideals.

If an idea has wide acceptance in the scientific community it means either that the base theory is new and the idea simply seems good on its surface (later to be disproven), or it means that the idea is supported by a bulk of research and has little chance of being discarded.

Global warming is an example of the latter. That you oppose it is due to ideological fighting rather than scientific expertise. Just like with creationism.

You have no concept of how science works, or the profession.

For starters, scientists don't have a job of public speaking, but of research instead. Public speaking is ancillary.

Secondly, science has always been about breaking down religiously-held and dogmatically supported ideals.

If an idea has wide acceptance in the scientific community it means either that the base theory is new and the idea simply seems good on its surface (later to be disproven), or it means that the idea is supported by a bulk of research and has little chance of being discarded.

Global warming is an example of the latter. That you oppose it is due to ideological fighting rather than scientific expertise. Just like with creationism.

If you get strong correlations between what everyone conceives of as "black" and meaningful markers of behavior ability, then you already have what you need.

>wide acceptance in the scientific community
IQ gap is widely accepted and the crux of disagreemnet is whether it's mostly due to genetic or environmental factors.

Now you're arguing that dark skin and nappy hair correlates with those things, but that alone is not what defines a recent African origin, and it doesn't make sense biologically.

What you're arguing is the nature vs nurture argument. Are the traits we associate with certain races and ideologies genetic or cultural? Just a it everyone agrees both, the debate revolves around how much of each. I don't know. People more studious than I do not know. I am reminded of an experiment done by woman who professionally trains dogs. She took in a wolf puppy and raised it among her dogs, treated it like a dog, trained it like a dog. It would grasp some things but it was impossible to train. It would remember a command for a week, pushing boundaries the entire time, before forgetting it entirely. It would ignore scolding. Eventually, this woman who trains dogs for a living gave it to a sanctuary because the wolf was just too much.

>lack of a scientific definition of race

>people will talk about dog species like black labs and golden retrievers
>"human races" are just a subjective meme!
???
what kind of psychotic disassociation are these people even capable of? It truly knows no end