Race and ethnicity

[gorski]

No, I'm no to go from animal kingdom to human society without at least any semi-decent mediation... at least an attempt... and this is blatant nonsense...

 

[dash_two]

But we're part of the animal kingdom too.

 

[gorski]

No, they are a part of our world... Besides, even if you put it like that [and determine the nature of further research, methodically speaking] - so what? How far can you go from there?

As I said, one can not go from AK to HS in a heartbeat, without any due consideration. The transition, if not properly mediated, lands one in all sorts of most conservative shite...

And that's just for starters. All the received wisdom crap from Social Darwinism makes me cringe. Just have a look at the above link...

I dare you to read it carefully...

 

[dash_two]

In a sense that invalidates a comparison of genetic diversity among, say, chimpanzees or wildcats with genetic diversity among humans?

 

[gorski]

That "sense" can work in AK... But how far do you think you can go with it STRAIGHT into HS, in an unmediated manner?

I repeat: the worst offences were possible when one went straight from theory to practice/policy, for example, in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's SSSR...

 

[dash_two]

I'm not sure what you mean by an 'unmediated manner'.

 

[gorski]

Jump to conclusions from AK to HS - as I already explained - without any careful thinking, presuming a helluvalot, the usual shite, i.e. "there's no essential difference between the two", so "whatever we can "observe" in AK is valid for HS"................

From the fact that [methodically speaking] one can not just simply "observe" in an absolute, objective manner, onwards - it's all a big stupid fraud for lazy bunnies... Received wisdom never is very 'scientific' to begin with but hey...

 

[dash_two]

You are not surely suggesting there should be something like a science version of the old Board of Censors, which used to check if books and plays had content likely to be detrimental to the morals of the general public?

 

[gorski]

You mean like there is a pier review now?

FFS, how did you jump to that conclusion? You read all sorts into my words, haven't you...

Btw, such a pier review at every point in time has always dismissed out of hand what we see later on as prevailing theories... Almost without fail. So it does exist.

And guess what? The kind of rubbish here put forward is prevailing at the moment. So, don't start, as "your lot" has an upper hand already and they are acting as the "scientific board of censors" right now in a slightly different manner...

 

[gorski]

What I propose is a careful debate on the subject.

Surely, your lot are not against a pier review, even if it's of slightly different sorts, where you lot would have to show where you are coming from - properly... are you?

I mean, something like a proper, in depth debate, even questioning the very grounds from which such nonsensical and dangerous claims are made, without any careful thinking...

Surely, being all for pier review as a principle, scrutiny and openness, you can't be against a pier review from your fellow piers, only this time reviewing from Philosophical and a rather Critical standpoint, are you?

 

[dash_two]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'your lot', but it doesn't bode well.

mean, something like a proper, in depth debate, even questioning the very grounds from which such nonsensical and dangerous claims are made, without any careful thinking...

Perhaps you should begin by defining what those claims are, and why, from the outset, you think of them as dangerous and nonsensical.

 

[gorski]

You haven't a clue where you stand, do you?

Anyway, you have a lot more in the second link [another thread here, on this forum, Philosophy section] I provided, a little bit above[#25 05-09-2007, 11:22 PM]... As I said, knock yourself out...

 

[dash_two]

Well, there's scientific curiosity for you.

 

[gorski]

Or prejudices, as it were... You know, when one is trained in a certain type of thinking and nothing else can get in...

 

[dash_two]

Okay, you want a discussion. Dilute micro wrote this:

That the differences we call, some call 'race' does have scientific merit if the definition is used the same as when we try to mark the differences of a single species variations of another animal which happen to look very different from each other.

You responded:

What bollox!!!

Why's it bollox?

 

[gorski]

Short term memory problems? Uchhh...

Seriously, m8, have a look at the link to the thread in the Philosophy section...

 

[fogbat]

What I propose is a careful debate on the subject.

Surely, your lot are not against a pier review, even if it's of slightly different sorts, where you lot would have to show where you are coming from - properly... are you?

I mean, something like a proper, in depth debate, even questioning the very grounds from which such nonsensical and dangerous claims are made, without any careful thinking...

Surely, being all for pier review as a principle, scrutiny and openness, you can't be against a pier review from your fellow piers, only this time reviewing from Philosophical and a rather Critical standpoint, are you?

?

 

[gorski]

Oh, well, can you see I had a bit of vino...??