How do we deal with the modern rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence? There are a number of problematic examples like the denial of climate change, the belief in god(s), the claim that race is a social construct, etc.
Is there a way we can influence people to be more accepting of science based reasoning?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
nature.com
sciencedirect.com
journal.frontiersin.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
jmg.bmj.com
twitter.com
> Is there a way we can influence people to be more accepting of science based reasoning?
No
No
>the claim that race is a social construct
That's actually true though. There are genetic differences between people from different places, but those differences don't map very well to the things we culturally label as different races.
See, this is an example of what I'm referring to.
there is no such thing as overwhelming evidence in science.
Only underwhelming contradictory evidence.
Also how do we deal with confirmation bias and pressure to publish?
So there are races, but when people say races, people mean something different, so there are no races. What kind of bullshit is that?
it should be corrected to "the claim that race is only a social construct" Coz that completely denies the genetical and biological factors that cause races in the first place.
>So there are races, but when people say races, people mean something different, so there are no races.
I didn't say "there are no races". I said that the racial categories we tend to use don't really make sense from a biological standpoint. They're things built up from history and culture, rather than something made by sorting people into groups based on genetics.
In biology two organisms belong to different race after they are evolved to incapable reproducing together. This is the definition, and based to this definition there are no different human races. Asian and black can have a baby together as can Caucasian and Indian. So, they belong to the same race.
Mutations that make humans look little different in comparison to other humans happen mostly in our outer layers. Like skin color. Deep down we have very few differences. Some amount of mutations always happen, but this doesn't make us to belong in different races.
Below is an extract from industrial melanism's wikipedia page. Just to show you how common and natural phenomenon adaptation to the environment actually is. These changes doesn't make those individuals belong to different race, however.
'''The evolution of the peppered moth is an evolutionary instance of colour variation in the moth population as a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. The concept refers to an increase in the number of dark-coloured moths due to industrial pollution, and a reciprocal decrease in the population in a clean environment. Hence, the phenomenon is called industrial melanism.''' -- en.wikipedia.org
>In biology two organisms belong to different race after they are evolved to incapable reproducing together.
That's actually (an inaccurate definition of) speciation, not race.
>Like skin color. Deep down we have very few differences.
Actually every organ system is notably different among the races, skin colour is just the most noticable.
Chromosomal race (this is what I'm talking about)
A population distinguished by having a unique karyotypes, i.e., different chromosome numbers (ploidy), or different chromosome structure.
Geographical race
A distinct population that is isolated in a particular area from other populations of a species, and consistently distinguishable from the others, e.g. morphology (or even only genetically). Geographic races are allopatric.
Physiological race
This is conversation I'm not taking.
But there ARE differences in groups based on genetics. Lactose tolerance is one of them, appearance is another, ear wax consistency, etc. And while yes, there are outliers, we can gauge what an "average x" looks like based on the genetics of large numbers of people.
Yes, you're right, "race" is mostly cultural and historical with genetics playing only a side role and the issue is where the line in the sand is drawn (What makes an individual an x and not a y for example).
But that is not what people (IE, Sociologists and other such conspiracy theorists) mean when they say "race is a social construct". They mean that genes do not exist and that everyone across the world shares the same morals, ethics, values, and culture that they do.
Conclusions
Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.
Honestly modern papers on the topic can't be trusted since anyone who questions the orthodoxy gets fired and has their career ruined by a public media lynch mob.
How convenient
Right. It is a world wide conspiracy. Too bad Snowden worked in IT.
Dudes a professor with a nobel prize got fired for making a sexist joke. Coming out and saying race is real is a guaranteed way of forfeiting any chance you have of tenure. Or even finding another job in academia.
Sure, that's a great way of rationalising your bias against actual consensus.
Good job
Consensus doesn't mean shit
In soviet russia the consensus was that genetics was bunk because they shut all up its proponents. The consensus was wrong. Silencing opposition doesn't make your position correct.
Do you also suggest that they faked their data to support popular racial view? I mean, come on, what would be the point to make these studies if they are just faking them. Don't you think that they would rather just make another study instead? Also, lying is much worse in science than saying something inappropriate.
What are you people on about, the cited paper supports the idea of distinct (and easily distinguishable, genetically speaking) ethnic groups and merely says their boundaries are not precise. It even demonstrates that Europeans, East Asians, and Africans are easily clustered into the three groups based on genetic data. (that said it is more than ten years old and uses ancient techniques to do so, though more modern results simply prove the point further).
Now that sort of classification may be too simplistic and more detailed clustering is used in practice, but that is the completely opposite end of the spectrum from claiming race is not real.
Pro-tip from the field of genomics: there is something of a cold war between social scientists who continue to claim things like genetics are only a minor contributor to intelligence and don't differ between ethnic groups, and biologists who are demonstrating the contrary - differences in cognitive ability between ethnic groups appear to have a significant genetic basis.
The tension is palpable, sooner or later something has to give.
Here's just one a recent publication:
sciencedirect.com
And here is an overview of the opinions of experts in the field:
journal.frontiersin.org
>modern rejection
Jeah, in past, it was much simpler to get that scientific message trough. Oh, wait...
Most of the people have always been superstitious idiots. It is not really their fault because we are wired that way. Intelligence and effort are needed to overcome that and it is something not everyone has. On the other hand, they are happy to live their small little happy life, however misguided it may be.
Things has become little better after the age of enlightenment or scientific revolution, however you want to call that. But not everyone are capable or willing to participate. Simple people can't understand complicated thoughts.
Even if some scientific consensus does emerge for race being a thing, then what?
What's the endgame for people who keep making these threads?
I don't understand your post. Have you taken a high school science class?
The only reason you know the Russian consensus was wrong is because the consensus of scientists tells you so. Oh sorry I'm sure you figured out genetics all by yourself, just like you "figured out" races are real all by yourself, right?
Ending disparate impact and affirmative action would be a good place to start.
Science is a social system where intersubjective agreement is reached to determine useful facts to act in the future.
The problem is people using fear to effect a sense of community. Humans breed without knowing why and need something to tell their children.
but how can we ever have equality if we treat people unequally?
fucking fascist
Is this meant to be an argument for silencing politically unpopular research in science or what?
Citing a worldwide conspiracy is the best way to never be wrong.
>Citing a worldwide conspiracy is the best way to never be wrong.
It's actually not a worldwide conspiracy, nonwestern researchers generally accept that race is real and the differences between racial groups are largely genetic in origin.
True. Lets remove affirmative action to avoid giving unmerited people special rights.
ever heard of a thing called privilege? probably not (you're likely white)
This is hinging on the idea that groups targeted by affirmative action are only at a disadvantage because of their genetics, which is very unlikely given history.
I've never seen anyone leeching from AA getting tested for genetics.
I'm sure there's somewhere you people can go to learn about why affirmative action exists and ask questions.
The whole idea of affirmative action rests on the assumption that blacks & co. under-perform solely because of past oppression, therefore we need to give them an advantage to make up for said oppression, lifting them back up to where they 'should' be.
Why do they force equality as in numbers but not rights, which will eventually lead to a smaller number of whites and larger number of blacks ?
Also why do these apply to only black people but not to any other race ? Slavey holds people back but poverty doesn't ? or war ? or economic deprivation ? Why don't they apply the same AA regulations to indians, koreans, asians and other under-privileged minorities ?
seems obvious to me that if a subsection of the population (however defined, be it genetically, racially or culturally) have lower iq than the mean, then the correct course of action would be to attempt to improve their iq through focused education
this would translate to MORE affirmative action, not less
Race and species are not the same you inbred
>Why don't they apply the same AA regulations to indians, koreans, asians and other under-privileged minorities ?
They actually do; females, mexicans and native americans all get bumped up. Asians (chinese, korean) get bumped down because they score too high.
Getting unmerited working positions does NOT raise your IQ if you're not cut for the job in the first place. It only creates an unfair environment for the guy who deserves that job but can't get because of some brainlet.
Although it is true that they should be focusing on education from younger ages and keeping them away from bad influences like the media.
Having your ancestors enslaved, being forced to live in a society where one race profited from the labors of yours, and being seen as more primal and thus less "Good" also creates an unfair environment.
Where was that? America? Because depending on your PoV, it either never happened anywhere at all (0 countries ever in history have relied on slaves. Remove slaves and everyone goes on just fine) or it happened everywhere and we should grow up and stop going on about ancient history (or maybe stop modern slavery, which isn't a western issue). Take your pick.
Or maybe we should force the Germans to pay every Jew a stipend for the rest of eternity, the U.K to do the same for India, France for most of west Africa, etc etc. Just grow up
>ancient history
Slavery was 153 years ago.
No, it's not THEIR environment. I assume it would make sense if this was happening in africa but they are not indigenous people. What makes you think they can claim any rights to be equal with the people here ? And why do you think slavery is so bad but war isn't. Do you think it would be better if they were simply killed ? Because america went into war with lots of other races from other countries which also create an unfair environment.
If "they" were killed there would be no affirmative action as there would be no one to apply it to. Then you could be having a conversation if it was right to kill all of those negroes.
She is is why as a Brit it drives me up the wall hearing about that shit and BLM etc
We banned slavery at home in 1807, empire in 1833, gave blacks rights just after ww1. So 200 years of emancipation and 100 years of equal rights (in a foreign country not thier home, btw!! I don't have such rights anywhere but the uk and eu!)
>it's not fair to judge someone on their merit because some bad shit happened to their ancestors a few hundred years ago
Err...
> the belief in god(s)
What part of local rule #3:
> No "religion vs science" threads
do you not understand?
If you cannot even follow the fucking directions, how do you expect the whole world to?
What I actually think is that contemporary society needs more social environments and less work environments and conditioning for work environments and the concurrent relaxation periods from those environments (which provides work environments for others.)
It's not a religion vs science thread, it's a how do we get the public on board with science in general thread.
In America. Currently, 8% of the population of Niger is slaves.
I don't care about other planets.
What about society as a racial construct?
race does have an impact on how human societies function
i wouldn't say race is the sole means
>Lactose tolerance
The point is, you can't define this is a race and this is not in human population because characteristics are too mixed to draw a line. You can find niggers that can swim, whites that deactivate lactase when they're 7 or so and skin color that gradates between populations like a fucking artistic palette.
>bBut that is not what people (IE, Sociologists and other such conspiracy theorists) mean when they say "race is a social construct". They mean that genes do not exist and that everyone across the world shares the same morals, ethics, values, and culture that they do.
Ah well thats mostly right. Thats because at some point over the 1945 allied victory, the propaganda against any kind of nazsi/communists made their policies as evil as them, so people assumed that following such policies would result in a slipery slope or in a justification of such regimes. For example; eugenics(nazis) or women being introduced in the workplace(commies).
Then racialism started negating itself with more propaganda, like "there is only one race, the human race" which gives the idea, that humanity is a race and this is something you can see in movies today since all aliens are "races" or "races" of alien without taking into account if their are mammal-like or arthropod-like.
From here, you had to negate completly all kinds of genetic discrimination, since humans couldn't be distinguished from dogs. And so, race is a social construct became the final fixing point for this propaganda that gave it the scientific basis it wanted and needed, therefore twisting it's meaning because people were already ready to understand it that way since we're all the same race right?
>They mean that genes do not exist and that everyone across the world shares the same morals, ethics, values, and culture that they do.
This is not, in the slightest, what they mean. You are arguing a strawman right now, and before you say "hurr strawman," lets take it apart.
The guy you replied to explicitly said
>I didn't say "there are no races".
>the racial categories we tend to use don't really make sense from a biological standpoint.
He said that the races that we have identified as a society are not the true races of our species. In other words, the lines that we have drawn to categorize ourselves are not the actual lines that exist.
Literally the last thing you would ever hear a sociologist (or really anybody in the soft "sciences") say is that there is a worldwide uniform set of morals, ethics, culture, etc. Literally ALL THEY DO is study those differences. They disregard genetics not because they don't think that they don't play a role, but because it would be incredibly difficult/impossible to collect that data.
So, you pretending that you are arguing against people who don't believe genes exist and that think there is a universal culture is a simple strawman. Your post could be featured in a textbook.
Now so that you understand what people you disagree with [math] actually [/math] think, allow me to redpill you. We don't have enough information to legitimately categorize people into their biological races. We have found that what we thought were races did not, in fact, have a significant level of shared genetic diversity from other groups that we thought were races. Therefore, the categorizations that we currently call race is socially constructed. By that we mean that they have no basis in science. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but we do not know what they are.
Other social constructs: the ideas of right and wrong, smart and stupid. We do not have valid metrics with which to measure these things yet, and so they are unscientific.
>eugenics(nazis)
Funny that nazis copied eugenics from the USA
Who are you to not say?
>In other words, the lines that we have drawn to categorize ourselves are not the actual lines that exist.
That's odd because if you do a blind analysis of someone's genes you can guess which race they'll self identify as over 90% of the time.
You are overly dependent on "we as a society". Fallacies abound.
oh ok, you must be right then with your irrefutable evidence ya got me
oh neat can you cite a research paper or go back to /pol/
Only if you admit you're wrong when I provide said paper.
Really quick, how do you think the slaves came over here? Did they invade America, fail, and were then enslaved? Did they come by choice knowing that they would have to perform harsh labor for no pay?
Do you actually think that it was "mercy" to enslave them over just murdering them?
Are you a Native American? Because if not fun factoid: you are also not indigenous and cannot claim any rights to be equal with "the people here."
If the paper actually supported your viewpoint, you wouldn't need prior assurance.
>binary viewpoints
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I'll admit I'm wrong if it's a genuine study and its not supported by a sample size of 20 randos that's posted on jewishconspiracy.org
The only reason I would track it down is the pleasure of seeing you admit you were wrong.
Anyway here's your citation.
you must be a special type of retard, honestly i admire your pretentiousness and overconfidence
i would ve been funny if your were not actually thinking like this. please take a couple of bio class (not even need to be upper division).
unfortunately this is a prime example of kids of this forum thinking they know shit
He never said that America was THEIR environment. Guess what, it's also not YOUR environment either.
If slavery had ended and boom blacks instantly had equal rights to whites and people dropped their prejudices, I would agree that if they were still underperforming as a demographic that it is their own fault. But that's not what happened. Prejudice ebbed on in perpetuity and still exists.
It's not a contested idea that people are less likely to succeed if their parents were not successful. Why does that logic not apply to blacks?
i know you lying but ill bite, care to elaborate ?
This is strictly false.
Actually no
>A 2005 study by Tang and colleagues used 326 genetic markers to determine genetic clusters. The 3,636 subjects, from the United States and Taiwan, self-identified as belonging to white, African American, East Asian or Hispanic ethnic groups. The study found "nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14 percent".
See:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Also see:
jmg.bmj.com
Genetically Obama is as white as he is black.
AGW denial is politically unpopular as well. Why do you agree with the consensus on AGW? It's not because you are well educated in climatology.
>Overwhelming scientific evidence against God (^:
i had a discussion with someone about this some time ago. im white, he's black. he rationalized that without affirmative action I wouldn't be in college and my place would be taken by some chinese or korean fuck.
to which i replied that if they have better scores and deserve it more, then they can have my spot
the conversation ended there
>Why do you agree with the consensus on AGW?
I don't; I haven't read enough on the topic to have a justifiable opinion one way or another on the consensus.
>Is there a way we can influence people to be more accepting of science based reasoning?
>the belief in god
So your definition of "science based reasoning" is labeling opinions with the word science and mindlessly accepting them. That's just as retarded as labeling opinions with the words "social construct" and mindlessly rejecting them.
We kill people like you.
You're implying science somehow disproves god and with "overwhelming evidence"
>B-bbut everyone on reddit say religion is illogical and unscientific so it must be true
>I'm being really scientific when I curse off mom when she tries to drag me to church
Describe science based thinking
So you aren't OP? And how much do you need to read to feel you understand the science more than the consensus of scientists?
>Le can we force everyone to abandon religion threads
Literally why? Not only will it not work and demotivate people to get into science if you present science as the antithesis or enemy of religion, but it doesn't offer to make anything better. user, more people "know" who created the universe than KNOW the quadratic formula. Do you really think telling them it's dumb to have those beliefs is going to motivate them to agree with you?
What we should do is promote scientific research and an exploration of our universe as a means of better understanding and appreciating what our Divine Creator has bestowed upon is. Why? Because this method is proven successful and encourages far more people to be interested in science than antagonizing them or calling them stupid ever will. People will always be superstitious. Hell, I'm an atheist and I catch myself doing little quirks here and there or getting spooked at night.
>our universe as a means of better understanding and appreciating
empty platitude. you want something
>What we should do is promote scientific research and an exploration of our universe as a means of better understanding and appreciating what our Divine Creator has bestowed upon is.
Exactly. I've always wondered why science and religion need to be at odds. We have been remarkably successful at finding structure in nature; people who believe in God should be willing to attribute this to an intelligent creator and want to uncover more of his design.
race and breed are 2 different things OP. A difference in race can't copulate and get children a difference in breed can. So niggers are just a different breed not a different race. Hate to burst you bubble but I just had to do it.
The solution is simple. We need to build a society underwater where we can be free to explore science without the constraints of an uninformed public. We will call it Rapture!
We don't look for structure because we want to explore. We explore because we want to find something new to exploit. Structure is valued because it is demonstrable.
I couldn't agree with this post any less.
Race is real but it is vastly oversimplified by Veeky Forums A Kenyan has absolutely fuck all in common with a Nigerian culturally and even appearance wise. It is so easy to tell them apart.
No, its because their silly experiments like putting wheat in the refrigerator failed over and over. Meanwhile in the real world people were starving. Reality is what ended it.
>why science and religion need to be at odds
They aren't, what is man made climate change? I don't think it's going to end well. We just replaced priests with climate scientists and mouthpiece hypocrite philanthropists, replaced the tithe with a carbon tax, replaced heretics with deniers...history repeats.
>climate change
so they recorded the temp since the beginning of time? get back to me when they do and they are not caught fudging their numbers/graphs
so you do agree with it