This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article seems to present scientific facts about demographic differences as pseudo-scientific. The sources mentioned are outdated and of low quality. Empirical facts are not explained, only moralistic and philosophical considerations are given the word. To call something a pseudoscience, however, is possible only on the basis of unscientific methods used by the science in question. Two sources have been cited for the pseudo-scientific status of racial sciences:
1. Paul Kurtz - Philosophical considerations, which make no statements of scientific value.
2. S. J. Gould an activist against sociobiological theories. The source is outdated (1981), sociobiological theories have now become established sciences (evolutionary psychology, heredity studies e.c.t.).
Numerous racial differences are now known, so "scientific racism" has undergone vindication through modern research. I would also like to point out that the burden of proof is on the part of the author, if something is called a pseudoscience it must be done with satisfactory sources, this is not the case in this article. Bafabengabantu ( talk) 14:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)— Bafabengabantu ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
This article has a large list of adherents of scientific racism in the antecedents section, but it dose not explain the origin of the term itself. I think it would be good to also include a history or etymology section that explains things such as who first coined the term "Scientific Racism", When it was first used, and in what context it was first used. Can anyone find any of this information? Underneaththesun ( talk) 07:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
References 1-5 are about genocide, and about some general race issues and ethics, they aren't academic publications. The question whether all human races have equal intelligence is a scientific question, and it can have answers yes, no, rather yes, rather no, don't know. If the answer is don't know, this should be an area of active research. Pseudoscience implies that the scientific answer is known and is yes while some claim otherwise. AFAIK, very few scientists dispute the notion that genes are a factor in intelligence. Based on this alone this can't be labeled pseudoscience. 24.4.39.254 ( talk) 19:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a valid reference, let alone possible argument, to call this 'pseudoscientific'. It's pure editorialisation and there is NO scientific consensus. If you want to add this editorial then at least you will have to show there is 'consensus', even by the clownish 'rules' of this venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.200.121 ( talk • contribs)
You can't say it's "scientific racism" and "pseudoscience" in the same place. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.29.184 ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 4.4 United States
The 2nd paragraph reads:
Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112]
A 'from' should be added between immigration and other so that the sentence reads:
Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration from other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112] 12.228.102.194 ( talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I would propose that this sentence be changed to {{"Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions that they claim are unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence". I think adding "that they claim are" would make it clear that the statement "connection between race and intelligence" is "unsupported by available evidence" is NOT read in Wikipedia's voice, as there have in fact been papers upon papers of credible research concluding that race and intelligence are, in fact, linked, and the statement is hence all but false. Here is one such study: [1]. Here is another, which itself, in fact, cites five more studies showing significant (though shrinking over time) differences between people identifying as "black" and those identifying as "white" (Jensen, Loehlin, Reynolds, Thorndike, Vincent). O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it is useful to quote Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns here, as it is the most authoritative statement ever published on this topic. It is a report published in 1995 by the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States.
The fifth section of the report deals specifically with ethnic group differences (although the report avoids using he term "race", the terms "black" and "white" are used throughout the report). This part of the report is far too long to quote here, but its most important conclusions regarding the black/white gap are summarized in this paragraph:
African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.
And this is the overall conclusion of the report:
In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place. The study of intelligence does not need politicized assertions and recriminations; it needs self-restraint, reflection, and a great deal more research. The questions that remain are socially as well as scientifically important. There is no reason to think them unanswerable, but finding the answers will require a shared and sustained effort as well as the commitment of substantial scientific resources. Just such a commitment is what we strongly recommend.
Grayfell has a history of misrepresenting the nature of research about this topic (I have been dealing with him in this area for several months, and he was reported over this issue at Arbitration Enforcement in May). He appears to be doing so again here. It is clear from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns that it is not merely some tiny group of racist academics who think the black/white IQ gap is a valid thing to study, or one that cannot be explained by something as simple as test bias. The American Psychological Association has argued for this perspective as well.
I don't particularly care about the content this article, but I will note that there are now three editors making this argument (myself, Oldstone James, and Agirlwithaguitar). If Grayfell is the only editor disagreeing, consensus can probably be considered to oppose him at this point. 2600:1004:B10A:CF5:EC68:9AF:2FE0:5DE4 ( talk) 01:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Agree with other commenters that the claim "scientific racism is pseudoscience" is unsubstantiated and that this is not a neutral viewpoint. Even the term 'scientific racism' shows bias against research on racial differences. Author should revise to reflect a truly neutral point of view. I myself do not have time to recommend specific wordings for the editorial changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agirlwithaguitar ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
How to fight racism using science by Adam Rutherford. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors who watchlist the article Scientific racism might be interested in looking at the related article Race and intelligence, which has been an area of contentious debate and edit-warring. (It is currently locked down for 3 days.) While Scientific racism is, I think, a good example of how Wikipedia handles fringe, the article Race and intelligence has a very different tone and content, as is clear from the first paragraph of the lede. See also Race and intelligence#The Jensenism debates. I'm putting this notice on all the WikiProjects that list Scientific racism as of high importance, in the hope that more editors will participate in discussions at Talk:Race and intelligence and help make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The problems at Race and intelligence were discussed off-wiki here: [2]. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [3]. NightHeron ( talk) 12:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
So there’s no imperial evidence for racial differences AT ALL, eh? So all the data that suggest racial differences in average levels of intelligence is just totally meaningless, eh? There is no scientific consensus for the non-existence of race. It’s all a media and leftist academia illusion. It is patently absurd to argue no evidence exists that the races are dissimilar. You can deny that evidence or attempt to refute that evidence. But to suggest that there is NO evidence? 50.228.126.226 ( talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The statement, "Following the United States Civil Rights Movement, many scientists who previously studied racial differences moved to other fields. For example, Robert Yerkes, who previously worked on the World War I Army intelligence testing, moved to the field of primatology" is incorrect. For one thing, Yerkes Robert Yerkes had been a primatologist before World War I, and died in the mid-1950s. He never abandoned eugenics or scientific racism (though he significantly de-emphasized these in his writings after around 1930), nor did he address the Civil Rights Movement Civil Rights Movement (which wasn't really in progress until after his death). In fact, many well-known eugenicists were always involved in other activities, or became so involved by the 1930s, and after World War II at the latest, generally abandoned any published work or public references to eugenics or scientific racism, in favor of their more "legitimate" pursuits. - ibycusreggio 10:50, 6 February 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.102.133.177 ( talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
An RfC asks whether the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines is a fringe viewpoint, see [4]. NightHeron ( talk) 23:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the category of "pseudo-science" to something of an opinion. This is because although this science can be viewed as hurtful, the claims made in this article are false(that it is proven pseudo-science). It is considered quite a mainstream opinion within the intelligence science community.
Many noble prize winners such as James Watson ( https://www.wired.com/2007/10/is-james-watson/), William Shockley( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAszZr3SkEs) and many more agree on heritable intelligence differences among races. On top of this, despite social pressures to no longer study racial differences, modern Havard Professor of genetics David Reich (One of Nature's top 10, winner of many scientific awards) comes to the same consensus. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html)
Furthermore, 52 university professors in intelligence and allied fields signed the 1994 document, 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence'( http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf), which concludes various statements such as heritable differences of IQ among racial groups. This document then sparked mass controversy among the media, prompting the American Psychological Association to issue an urgent documented statement known as "Intelligence: Known and Unknown", which reaffirms the stance that there is no consensus if racial IQ gaps are either genetic or environmental, but rather debated. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232430439_Intelligence_Knowns_and_Unknowns) No such authoritative scientific statement has been made since, therefore indicating the inaccuracy of this article that "scientific racism" is "pseudoscience" and disproven by the scientific community. It is still in question.
On top of this, there is still some modern research supporting racial differences, such as IQ differences and general differences among brain structures. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(15)00671-5 https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301904
In 2019-20, a large survey of intelligence experts was conducted and found that the vast majority of intelligence experts believe that the media inaccurately portrays the reality of intelligence-related science. (Hence google presents opinionated articles giving false statements about books like the ‘Bell Curve’) Most experts also believed that black-white IQ differences were partially genetic. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886
The evidence used to claim that "scientific racism" is no longer science, is the commonly criticized booked "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephan Jay Gould. This book was published in 1984 (after much of the evidence I have stated) and was heavily criticized as being completely unscientific. ( http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html) On top of this, Gould was found to have completely fabricated many parts of his book. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html)
Suggested changes, reasons for are above: 1. Either remove or rename this article. "Race realism" would be a more appropriate name as it is natural. It is the belief of racial differences to explain socio-economic outcomes, it is an ideology. This article should merely state the hard evidence in regard to this topic instead of falsely claiming it as "racism" and "pseudoscience". 2. Include both sides of this scientific debate. 3. Remove the claim it is "pseudo-science" as this is a disputed topic even today. It is not "pseudo-science." This is dishonest. ObjectiveTruthIsImportant ( talk) 05:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not just a hand full of experts and none are "fringe" all are incredibly respected. James Watson is not "fringe." The question was no answered, someone had already left a very detailed response going to poor credibility of the sources claiming it was fringe to be met with "take your racist bullshit somewhere else" which is not consensus. Furthermore, you cannot quote Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source because it just "claims someone is a racist" without going into the science. Almost all the sources are written by journalists with no expertise. On top of this, no it was not a handful of scientists, the survey concluded the overwhelming majority believe genes plays a role. Change it, because what I read is the most intellectually dishonest thing in my life. I gave noble prize winners and studies claiming that the majority believe the media poorly portray intelligence testing and that genetics play a role in black-white IQ differences. Using books by journalists that have no understanding on the topic is not credible, most intelligence scientists view this as a common position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveTruthIsImportant ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note this discussion: Talk:Cultural_racism#'Biological_racism'_versus_'Scientific_racism'. Biological racism has redirected to Scientific racism since 2006. Yesterday, I added the term to the lead. LaTeeDa ( talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, Two editors are removing my contribution to this page about "Scientific racism in Brazil" without checking the scientific and historical accuracy of its contents, just because I quote myself (in a work reviewed by experts and published in a prestigious scientific journal) as well as I quote many other references which are not my own work. I cannot understand how come this editor just deleted the section on "scientific racism in Brazil" without checking that THE WHOLE SECTION was entirely taken from a doubled blind checked paper which has been reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the History of Biology: the Journal of the History of Biology. All the content in the section I included and the many historical references I quoted (apart from my own work) were product of serious research and had been published in a prestigious scientific journal after been reviewed by experts before publication. My interest was not self citing -as these editors claim- but just supplying wikipedia with good scientific contents in an aspect that had not received any attention within the entry "scientific racism": scientific racism in Brazil. Regarding my self citation, the work I quote is the only article written in English which has passed through expert scientific revision that you can find in Google Scholar and other scientific libraries including the issue "Scientific Racism in Brazil" explicitly in its title. Thereafter, I guess it's contents are especially appropriate for this page and that work is really worthy to be quoted it in this page. Not for self promotion, but in order to contribute to the diffusion of accurate knowledge about this particular topic! And I repeat: in the section which was unfairly deleted I QUOTED MANY OTHER HISTORICAL SOURCES WHICH ARE NOT MY OWN WORK! I hope that other editors in this page can check that the whole section I included is based on serious research and that it is worthy to be included in this page. In the following lines, I include the section as it appeared before it was inappropriately deleted. Thank you for your help! The section is the following:
During the second half of the nineteenth century, different forms and degrees of racism penetrated biological discourses about human diversity in Brazil. [1] Protected under the theoretical and rhetorical apparatus of the natural sciences, it was precisely their scientific status which provided these ethnocentric discourses with the greatest legitimacy in the Brazilian society. Thus, biology was (mis)used as a formidable symbolic apparatus for the naturalization of Brazilian social inequalities between different ethnic groups. Of course, it was not nineteenth century biology that invented racism in Brazil or Latin America. Ideas about the inferiority of the African People, the degeneration of the Indians and their mixed descendants, etc. had appeared long before in American history. Brazilian racism was not created by science, but at the end of the nineteenth century, it was absorbed and recreated into a new form of modern ideology by natural sciences. Scientific discourses in human biology, anthropology, evolutionary theory, craniometrics, obstetrics, psychiatry, etc., became, in many cases, perfect theoretical instruments for the legitimation of racial hierarchies after the abolition of slavery. In different moments along the nineteenth century, biology was invoked to justify the expulsion of indigenous people from their native lands [2], or to foresee their extinction—along with that of Brazilian blacks and some mestiços- as a natural consequence of Darwinian inter-racial competition and sexual selection [3] [4]. Biology also served as an ideological weapon for the legitimation of racially biased immigration laws. Brain science was invoked to promote the application of different legal codes for each race, adapted to the supposed innate differences in the mental capacities of the different ethnic groups. [5] Biological discourses were used to defend different forms of social programs, intended to improve the biological characteristics of the Brazilian population, making it ‘‘whiter’’ (which at the time was synonymous for ‘‘more intelligent’’ and ‘‘better’’) [6] [7] Finally, human biology, combined with physical anthropology and legal medicine, were misused to stigmatize blacks and mestiços as degenerate human breeds, as well as potential innate criminals, such as in the work of Raimundo Nina Rodrigues [8]. Immediately after the arrival of evolutionism at Brazilian universities, many scientists adopted polygenic models of human evolution, in an attempt to naturalize the social inequalities that the country had inherited from its colonial past. At the end of the nineteenth century, some of the best scientific institutions in the country, such as the medical School of Bahia, considered perfectly scientific to distinguish white and black people as different human species. [9] For many Brazilian white scientists, this biological myth was, at those times, ‘‘the truth, based on the study of comparative anatomy, of embryological development, as well as on what is observed in the domains of phylogeny’’ [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I’ve gone ahead and added that the section describing Carl Linnaeus’s work on taxonomy lends undue weight to certain viewpoints. In particular, the section reads like a defense of Linnaeus’s racial theory, with several scholars cited as essentially saying, “well, he wasn’t being that racist.” This is, in my limited research, in contradiction with consensus from race scholars regarding his Systema. I’ll consider revising this myself, but I urge editors with more specialized knowledge of this field to do so before me.
TritonsRising (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest reading up on Swedish sources, such as the professor of history of ideas Gunnar Broberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakister ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
History of the race and intelligence controversy
I added the following comprehensive Wikipedia discussion article, History of the race and intelligence controversy,, which was removed. Why? Arodb ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "he did not established" to "he did not establish". 2804:14D:AC83:4F70:E5D0:AC09:D367:503F ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. NightHeron ( talk) 18:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This seems garbled and incoherent in parts. It looks like there may be some kind of tussle going on involving creationists and their opposition. I have no axe to grind on this either way, but could someone please clarify the discussion. (See e.g. the reference to "quote mine.") Thanks Be-nice:-) ( talk) 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Notification: I've asked at [6] whether the two sources (other than Darwin's own words) that are used in this section are RS for saying that Darwin's views on race were not racist. NightHeron ( talk) 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlike some other Darwinists, including Darwin himself, he did not "regard modern primitives as almost filling the gap between man and ape".In other words, he would not have agreed with the last sentence of the long quote from Descent in the article's earlier version. Of course, that doesn't mean that Wallace was completely immune to the racist theorizing of his time. Anyway, even if we disagree about a few things (like possibly Darwin vs Wallace on race), it's good that we're cooperating and largely in agreement on what's needed to improve the article. NightHeron ( talk) 12:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
staunch abolitionist. Is it common for the sources to refer to Darwin that way? I know that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was certainly a staunch abolitionist. But slavery was abolished in Britain before Darwin was born, and it was abolished in the British empire in 1833, 38 years before Descent of Man was published. Under these circumstances is it meaningful to credit Darwin with abolitionist sentiments? I think that the Jackson-Weidman textbook is generally reliable, but the authors are Americans and probably do not have a complete knowledge of British history. NightHeron ( talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
staunch abolitionistis a gross understatement, his whole family was fanatical about it! His sisters pushed him on it, so at Edinburgh uni he wrote to tell them he was getting tuition from "a blackamoor", John Edmonstone, [12] who he long remembered as ""a very pleasant and intelligent man". In South America he quarrelled with Captain Fitzroy, and nearly lost his place on the ship. Race, Civilization, and Progress | Darwin Correspondence Project looks useful for upgrading the articles, note during the Beagle trip he "expressed excitement at the prospect of England abolishing slavery in its territories. Slavery was outlawed in most of the British empire by an act of Parliament in August 1833" (what tends to get forgotten is that this compensated the slaveowners and not the slaves, though there were arguments for this) – but I digress. During the American Civil War "Darwin’s views were chiefly coloured by his staunch opposition to slavery", [13] and in 1871 he discussed the topic with his old friend who had been the vicar of Down when Darwin moved there: "After the publication of Descent, these differences were raised to a high pitch" [14]; caution: the language in the last source may offend modern readers of a nervous disposition. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuriesand suggests that it ended by 1833. Similarly, in the US one does not normally use the term to refer to anything later than 1865. But what you write does clarify the matter. NightHeron ( talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the views of James Watson would be a great addition to the page, he is a Noble Price winner in biology and frequently named one of the fathers of modern genetics. So he is a person with a background and a reputation in biology who is outspoken about the fact that he thinks that human races exist. It would make a great addition to the page since more biologists added to the Past 1945 part help to paint a clearer picture. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html AlphaHeartless ( talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) AlphaHeartless ( talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Change "...among anthropologists that human race is a..." to "...among anthropologists that the human race is a..." Pmmuhfam ( talk) 20:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Since that time, developments in human evolutionary genetics and physical anthropology have led to a new consensus among anthropologists thatcategorizing humans by race isracial classifications of humans are a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one.
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways. While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive or simplistic. Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.
categorizing humans ... is a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological oneimplies that "categorizing" is no "biological phenomenon", and that's a trivial truth not relevant for the article, since it's always the human mind that is responsible for the act of categorizing. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 11:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Although modern genetics has shown time and again that race is not a biological reality and cannot adequately describe human variation, many anthropologists are unable or unwilling to put aside racial typology as an explanatory tool.This one says
At the social level, the new genomic tools can help us to better appreciate the fluidity of social identity, including 'race', 'ethnicity' and the more complex notion of ancestry.I think this is sufficient for this point in the lead. Grayfell ( talk) 22:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
it seems to me that there is far more in the AAPA statement about a moral imperative to oppose the concept of raceNo, the statement has two lines of thought: One about the concept being harmful, but the other one is that the concept is untenable in the light of modern genetic research. That means that the refutation of the concept of biologically distinct races is based on exact science, just like the refutation of the concept of a flat earth. On the other hand, the idea that modern science is driven by ideology or a "moral imperative" is popular in racist circles. As Grayfell pointed out, related discussions have already been archived a hundred times. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
just do not see the references for a scientific consensus against a biological basis for "race" then you have simply not looked. The cited references couldn't be clearer. You will find plenty more at Race (human categorization). And this is certainly not the place to argue on a priori grounds against the wisdom of scientific consensus. Please review the relevant guidelines before engaging further: WP:LISTEN, WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIR. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Racial_biases_in_medical_decision-making_tools§ion=1 to See Also Dgc1996 ( talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article seems to present scientific facts about demographic differences as pseudo-scientific. The sources mentioned are outdated and of low quality. Empirical facts are not explained, only moralistic and philosophical considerations are given the word. To call something a pseudoscience, however, is possible only on the basis of unscientific methods used by the science in question. Two sources have been cited for the pseudo-scientific status of racial sciences:
1. Paul Kurtz - Philosophical considerations, which make no statements of scientific value.
2. S. J. Gould an activist against sociobiological theories. The source is outdated (1981), sociobiological theories have now become established sciences (evolutionary psychology, heredity studies e.c.t.).
Numerous racial differences are now known, so "scientific racism" has undergone vindication through modern research. I would also like to point out that the burden of proof is on the part of the author, if something is called a pseudoscience it must be done with satisfactory sources, this is not the case in this article. Bafabengabantu ( talk) 14:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)— Bafabengabantu ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
This article has a large list of adherents of scientific racism in the antecedents section, but it dose not explain the origin of the term itself. I think it would be good to also include a history or etymology section that explains things such as who first coined the term "Scientific Racism", When it was first used, and in what context it was first used. Can anyone find any of this information? Underneaththesun ( talk) 07:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
References 1-5 are about genocide, and about some general race issues and ethics, they aren't academic publications. The question whether all human races have equal intelligence is a scientific question, and it can have answers yes, no, rather yes, rather no, don't know. If the answer is don't know, this should be an area of active research. Pseudoscience implies that the scientific answer is known and is yes while some claim otherwise. AFAIK, very few scientists dispute the notion that genes are a factor in intelligence. Based on this alone this can't be labeled pseudoscience. 24.4.39.254 ( talk) 19:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There isn't a valid reference, let alone possible argument, to call this 'pseudoscientific'. It's pure editorialisation and there is NO scientific consensus. If you want to add this editorial then at least you will have to show there is 'consensus', even by the clownish 'rules' of this venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.200.121 ( talk • contribs)
You can't say it's "scientific racism" and "pseudoscience" in the same place. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.29.184 ( talk) 21:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under 4.4 United States
The 2nd paragraph reads:
Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112]
A 'from' should be added between immigration and other so that the sentence reads:
Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration from other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112] 12.228.102.194 ( talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I would propose that this sentence be changed to {{"Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions that they claim are unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence". I think adding "that they claim are" would make it clear that the statement "connection between race and intelligence" is "unsupported by available evidence" is NOT read in Wikipedia's voice, as there have in fact been papers upon papers of credible research concluding that race and intelligence are, in fact, linked, and the statement is hence all but false. Here is one such study: [1]. Here is another, which itself, in fact, cites five more studies showing significant (though shrinking over time) differences between people identifying as "black" and those identifying as "white" (Jensen, Loehlin, Reynolds, Thorndike, Vincent). O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it is useful to quote Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns here, as it is the most authoritative statement ever published on this topic. It is a report published in 1995 by the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States.
The fifth section of the report deals specifically with ethnic group differences (although the report avoids using he term "race", the terms "black" and "white" are used throughout the report). This part of the report is far too long to quote here, but its most important conclusions regarding the black/white gap are summarized in this paragraph:
African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.
And this is the overall conclusion of the report:
In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place. The study of intelligence does not need politicized assertions and recriminations; it needs self-restraint, reflection, and a great deal more research. The questions that remain are socially as well as scientifically important. There is no reason to think them unanswerable, but finding the answers will require a shared and sustained effort as well as the commitment of substantial scientific resources. Just such a commitment is what we strongly recommend.
Grayfell has a history of misrepresenting the nature of research about this topic (I have been dealing with him in this area for several months, and he was reported over this issue at Arbitration Enforcement in May). He appears to be doing so again here. It is clear from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns that it is not merely some tiny group of racist academics who think the black/white IQ gap is a valid thing to study, or one that cannot be explained by something as simple as test bias. The American Psychological Association has argued for this perspective as well.
I don't particularly care about the content this article, but I will note that there are now three editors making this argument (myself, Oldstone James, and Agirlwithaguitar). If Grayfell is the only editor disagreeing, consensus can probably be considered to oppose him at this point. 2600:1004:B10A:CF5:EC68:9AF:2FE0:5DE4 ( talk) 01:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Agree with other commenters that the claim "scientific racism is pseudoscience" is unsubstantiated and that this is not a neutral viewpoint. Even the term 'scientific racism' shows bias against research on racial differences. Author should revise to reflect a truly neutral point of view. I myself do not have time to recommend specific wordings for the editorial changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agirlwithaguitar ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
How to fight racism using science by Adam Rutherford. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors who watchlist the article Scientific racism might be interested in looking at the related article Race and intelligence, which has been an area of contentious debate and edit-warring. (It is currently locked down for 3 days.) While Scientific racism is, I think, a good example of how Wikipedia handles fringe, the article Race and intelligence has a very different tone and content, as is clear from the first paragraph of the lede. See also Race and intelligence#The Jensenism debates. I'm putting this notice on all the WikiProjects that list Scientific racism as of high importance, in the hope that more editors will participate in discussions at Talk:Race and intelligence and help make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The problems at Race and intelligence were discussed off-wiki here: [2]. Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 13:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [3]. NightHeron ( talk) 12:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
So there’s no imperial evidence for racial differences AT ALL, eh? So all the data that suggest racial differences in average levels of intelligence is just totally meaningless, eh? There is no scientific consensus for the non-existence of race. It’s all a media and leftist academia illusion. It is patently absurd to argue no evidence exists that the races are dissimilar. You can deny that evidence or attempt to refute that evidence. But to suggest that there is NO evidence? 50.228.126.226 ( talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The statement, "Following the United States Civil Rights Movement, many scientists who previously studied racial differences moved to other fields. For example, Robert Yerkes, who previously worked on the World War I Army intelligence testing, moved to the field of primatology" is incorrect. For one thing, Yerkes Robert Yerkes had been a primatologist before World War I, and died in the mid-1950s. He never abandoned eugenics or scientific racism (though he significantly de-emphasized these in his writings after around 1930), nor did he address the Civil Rights Movement Civil Rights Movement (which wasn't really in progress until after his death). In fact, many well-known eugenicists were always involved in other activities, or became so involved by the 1930s, and after World War II at the latest, generally abandoned any published work or public references to eugenics or scientific racism, in favor of their more "legitimate" pursuits. - ibycusreggio 10:50, 6 February 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.102.133.177 ( talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
An RfC asks whether the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines is a fringe viewpoint, see [4]. NightHeron ( talk) 23:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the category of "pseudo-science" to something of an opinion. This is because although this science can be viewed as hurtful, the claims made in this article are false(that it is proven pseudo-science). It is considered quite a mainstream opinion within the intelligence science community.
Many noble prize winners such as James Watson ( https://www.wired.com/2007/10/is-james-watson/), William Shockley( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAszZr3SkEs) and many more agree on heritable intelligence differences among races. On top of this, despite social pressures to no longer study racial differences, modern Havard Professor of genetics David Reich (One of Nature's top 10, winner of many scientific awards) comes to the same consensus. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html)
Furthermore, 52 university professors in intelligence and allied fields signed the 1994 document, 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence'( http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf), which concludes various statements such as heritable differences of IQ among racial groups. This document then sparked mass controversy among the media, prompting the American Psychological Association to issue an urgent documented statement known as "Intelligence: Known and Unknown", which reaffirms the stance that there is no consensus if racial IQ gaps are either genetic or environmental, but rather debated. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232430439_Intelligence_Knowns_and_Unknowns) No such authoritative scientific statement has been made since, therefore indicating the inaccuracy of this article that "scientific racism" is "pseudoscience" and disproven by the scientific community. It is still in question.
On top of this, there is still some modern research supporting racial differences, such as IQ differences and general differences among brain structures. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(15)00671-5 https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301904
In 2019-20, a large survey of intelligence experts was conducted and found that the vast majority of intelligence experts believe that the media inaccurately portrays the reality of intelligence-related science. (Hence google presents opinionated articles giving false statements about books like the ‘Bell Curve’) Most experts also believed that black-white IQ differences were partially genetic. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886
The evidence used to claim that "scientific racism" is no longer science, is the commonly criticized booked "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephan Jay Gould. This book was published in 1984 (after much of the evidence I have stated) and was heavily criticized as being completely unscientific. ( http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html) On top of this, Gould was found to have completely fabricated many parts of his book. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html)
Suggested changes, reasons for are above: 1. Either remove or rename this article. "Race realism" would be a more appropriate name as it is natural. It is the belief of racial differences to explain socio-economic outcomes, it is an ideology. This article should merely state the hard evidence in regard to this topic instead of falsely claiming it as "racism" and "pseudoscience". 2. Include both sides of this scientific debate. 3. Remove the claim it is "pseudo-science" as this is a disputed topic even today. It is not "pseudo-science." This is dishonest. ObjectiveTruthIsImportant ( talk) 05:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not just a hand full of experts and none are "fringe" all are incredibly respected. James Watson is not "fringe." The question was no answered, someone had already left a very detailed response going to poor credibility of the sources claiming it was fringe to be met with "take your racist bullshit somewhere else" which is not consensus. Furthermore, you cannot quote Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source because it just "claims someone is a racist" without going into the science. Almost all the sources are written by journalists with no expertise. On top of this, no it was not a handful of scientists, the survey concluded the overwhelming majority believe genes plays a role. Change it, because what I read is the most intellectually dishonest thing in my life. I gave noble prize winners and studies claiming that the majority believe the media poorly portray intelligence testing and that genetics play a role in black-white IQ differences. Using books by journalists that have no understanding on the topic is not credible, most intelligence scientists view this as a common position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveTruthIsImportant ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please note this discussion: Talk:Cultural_racism#'Biological_racism'_versus_'Scientific_racism'. Biological racism has redirected to Scientific racism since 2006. Yesterday, I added the term to the lead. LaTeeDa ( talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, Two editors are removing my contribution to this page about "Scientific racism in Brazil" without checking the scientific and historical accuracy of its contents, just because I quote myself (in a work reviewed by experts and published in a prestigious scientific journal) as well as I quote many other references which are not my own work. I cannot understand how come this editor just deleted the section on "scientific racism in Brazil" without checking that THE WHOLE SECTION was entirely taken from a doubled blind checked paper which has been reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the History of Biology: the Journal of the History of Biology. All the content in the section I included and the many historical references I quoted (apart from my own work) were product of serious research and had been published in a prestigious scientific journal after been reviewed by experts before publication. My interest was not self citing -as these editors claim- but just supplying wikipedia with good scientific contents in an aspect that had not received any attention within the entry "scientific racism": scientific racism in Brazil. Regarding my self citation, the work I quote is the only article written in English which has passed through expert scientific revision that you can find in Google Scholar and other scientific libraries including the issue "Scientific Racism in Brazil" explicitly in its title. Thereafter, I guess it's contents are especially appropriate for this page and that work is really worthy to be quoted it in this page. Not for self promotion, but in order to contribute to the diffusion of accurate knowledge about this particular topic! And I repeat: in the section which was unfairly deleted I QUOTED MANY OTHER HISTORICAL SOURCES WHICH ARE NOT MY OWN WORK! I hope that other editors in this page can check that the whole section I included is based on serious research and that it is worthy to be included in this page. In the following lines, I include the section as it appeared before it was inappropriately deleted. Thank you for your help! The section is the following:
During the second half of the nineteenth century, different forms and degrees of racism penetrated biological discourses about human diversity in Brazil. [1] Protected under the theoretical and rhetorical apparatus of the natural sciences, it was precisely their scientific status which provided these ethnocentric discourses with the greatest legitimacy in the Brazilian society. Thus, biology was (mis)used as a formidable symbolic apparatus for the naturalization of Brazilian social inequalities between different ethnic groups. Of course, it was not nineteenth century biology that invented racism in Brazil or Latin America. Ideas about the inferiority of the African People, the degeneration of the Indians and their mixed descendants, etc. had appeared long before in American history. Brazilian racism was not created by science, but at the end of the nineteenth century, it was absorbed and recreated into a new form of modern ideology by natural sciences. Scientific discourses in human biology, anthropology, evolutionary theory, craniometrics, obstetrics, psychiatry, etc., became, in many cases, perfect theoretical instruments for the legitimation of racial hierarchies after the abolition of slavery. In different moments along the nineteenth century, biology was invoked to justify the expulsion of indigenous people from their native lands [2], or to foresee their extinction—along with that of Brazilian blacks and some mestiços- as a natural consequence of Darwinian inter-racial competition and sexual selection [3] [4]. Biology also served as an ideological weapon for the legitimation of racially biased immigration laws. Brain science was invoked to promote the application of different legal codes for each race, adapted to the supposed innate differences in the mental capacities of the different ethnic groups. [5] Biological discourses were used to defend different forms of social programs, intended to improve the biological characteristics of the Brazilian population, making it ‘‘whiter’’ (which at the time was synonymous for ‘‘more intelligent’’ and ‘‘better’’) [6] [7] Finally, human biology, combined with physical anthropology and legal medicine, were misused to stigmatize blacks and mestiços as degenerate human breeds, as well as potential innate criminals, such as in the work of Raimundo Nina Rodrigues [8]. Immediately after the arrival of evolutionism at Brazilian universities, many scientists adopted polygenic models of human evolution, in an attempt to naturalize the social inequalities that the country had inherited from its colonial past. At the end of the nineteenth century, some of the best scientific institutions in the country, such as the medical School of Bahia, considered perfectly scientific to distinguish white and black people as different human species. [9] For many Brazilian white scientists, this biological myth was, at those times, ‘‘the truth, based on the study of comparative anatomy, of embryological development, as well as on what is observed in the domains of phylogeny’’ [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I’ve gone ahead and added that the section describing Carl Linnaeus’s work on taxonomy lends undue weight to certain viewpoints. In particular, the section reads like a defense of Linnaeus’s racial theory, with several scholars cited as essentially saying, “well, he wasn’t being that racist.” This is, in my limited research, in contradiction with consensus from race scholars regarding his Systema. I’ll consider revising this myself, but I urge editors with more specialized knowledge of this field to do so before me.
TritonsRising (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggest reading up on Swedish sources, such as the professor of history of ideas Gunnar Broberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakister ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
History of the race and intelligence controversy
I added the following comprehensive Wikipedia discussion article, History of the race and intelligence controversy,, which was removed. Why? Arodb ( talk) 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "he did not established" to "he did not establish". 2804:14D:AC83:4F70:E5D0:AC09:D367:503F ( talk) 17:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. NightHeron ( talk) 18:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This seems garbled and incoherent in parts. It looks like there may be some kind of tussle going on involving creationists and their opposition. I have no axe to grind on this either way, but could someone please clarify the discussion. (See e.g. the reference to "quote mine.") Thanks Be-nice:-) ( talk) 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Notification: I've asked at [6] whether the two sources (other than Darwin's own words) that are used in this section are RS for saying that Darwin's views on race were not racist. NightHeron ( talk) 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlike some other Darwinists, including Darwin himself, he did not "regard modern primitives as almost filling the gap between man and ape".In other words, he would not have agreed with the last sentence of the long quote from Descent in the article's earlier version. Of course, that doesn't mean that Wallace was completely immune to the racist theorizing of his time. Anyway, even if we disagree about a few things (like possibly Darwin vs Wallace on race), it's good that we're cooperating and largely in agreement on what's needed to improve the article. NightHeron ( talk) 12:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
staunch abolitionist. Is it common for the sources to refer to Darwin that way? I know that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was certainly a staunch abolitionist. But slavery was abolished in Britain before Darwin was born, and it was abolished in the British empire in 1833, 38 years before Descent of Man was published. Under these circumstances is it meaningful to credit Darwin with abolitionist sentiments? I think that the Jackson-Weidman textbook is generally reliable, but the authors are Americans and probably do not have a complete knowledge of British history. NightHeron ( talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
staunch abolitionistis a gross understatement, his whole family was fanatical about it! His sisters pushed him on it, so at Edinburgh uni he wrote to tell them he was getting tuition from "a blackamoor", John Edmonstone, [12] who he long remembered as ""a very pleasant and intelligent man". In South America he quarrelled with Captain Fitzroy, and nearly lost his place on the ship. Race, Civilization, and Progress | Darwin Correspondence Project looks useful for upgrading the articles, note during the Beagle trip he "expressed excitement at the prospect of England abolishing slavery in its territories. Slavery was outlawed in most of the British empire by an act of Parliament in August 1833" (what tends to get forgotten is that this compensated the slaveowners and not the slaves, though there were arguments for this) – but I digress. During the American Civil War "Darwin’s views were chiefly coloured by his staunch opposition to slavery", [13] and in 1871 he discussed the topic with his old friend who had been the vicar of Down when Darwin moved there: "After the publication of Descent, these differences were raised to a high pitch" [14]; caution: the language in the last source may offend modern readers of a nervous disposition. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuriesand suggests that it ended by 1833. Similarly, in the US one does not normally use the term to refer to anything later than 1865. But what you write does clarify the matter. NightHeron ( talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the views of James Watson would be a great addition to the page, he is a Noble Price winner in biology and frequently named one of the fathers of modern genetics. So he is a person with a background and a reputation in biology who is outspoken about the fact that he thinks that human races exist. It would make a great addition to the page since more biologists added to the Past 1945 part help to paint a clearer picture. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html AlphaHeartless ( talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) AlphaHeartless ( talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Change "...among anthropologists that human race is a..." to "...among anthropologists that the human race is a..." Pmmuhfam ( talk) 20:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Since that time, developments in human evolutionary genetics and physical anthropology have led to a new consensus among anthropologists thatcategorizing humans by race isracial classifications of humans are a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one.
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways. While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive or simplistic. Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.
categorizing humans ... is a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological oneimplies that "categorizing" is no "biological phenomenon", and that's a trivial truth not relevant for the article, since it's always the human mind that is responsible for the act of categorizing. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 11:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Although modern genetics has shown time and again that race is not a biological reality and cannot adequately describe human variation, many anthropologists are unable or unwilling to put aside racial typology as an explanatory tool.This one says
At the social level, the new genomic tools can help us to better appreciate the fluidity of social identity, including 'race', 'ethnicity' and the more complex notion of ancestry.I think this is sufficient for this point in the lead. Grayfell ( talk) 22:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
it seems to me that there is far more in the AAPA statement about a moral imperative to oppose the concept of raceNo, the statement has two lines of thought: One about the concept being harmful, but the other one is that the concept is untenable in the light of modern genetic research. That means that the refutation of the concept of biologically distinct races is based on exact science, just like the refutation of the concept of a flat earth. On the other hand, the idea that modern science is driven by ideology or a "moral imperative" is popular in racist circles. As Grayfell pointed out, related discussions have already been archived a hundred times. -- Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
just do not see the references for a scientific consensus against a biological basis for "race" then you have simply not looked. The cited references couldn't be clearer. You will find plenty more at Race (human categorization). And this is certainly not the place to argue on a priori grounds against the wisdom of scientific consensus. Please review the relevant guidelines before engaging further: WP:LISTEN, WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIR. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Scientific racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Racial_biases_in_medical_decision-making_tools§ion=1 to See Also Dgc1996 ( talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)