|
|
Race ThreadRob Quinlan (C611417@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU)Wed, 19 Oct 1994 11:52:55 CDT
of comments for you all. First, I think Lee Cronk has a very good point when he observes that we have a double standard for slander. However, given the subject, it doesn't surprise me. I know that race is a touchy issue (non-issue), but people who make posts like Mike Lieber's last ought to be ASHAMED of themselves. Shame on you Mike. You usually make such intelligent comments. Did someone else get hold of your computer? Second, I think it was David Degusta that mentioned that we seem to be holding Rushton to a different standard of evidence. This seems true, but we also hold medical trials of new medicines to a different standard of evidence too. That's because of the potential for harm. Third, correlations may not *prove* causality, but they give an argument an amount of support depending on the strength of the correlation. I would like to be able to use correlations to support my own arguments so let's not throw them out. After all, there may be an r of .8 of walking into a certain building and dying. That doesn't mean that going in the building causes dying, but . . . who would like to go first? Fourth, you don't have to demonstrate the biochemical pathways to demonstrate that a trait is genetically heritable. If so, we would have to dispense with almost all of genetics including the work of Gregor Mendel. It's a lame counter argument. One would do better to attack the concept of race then all of genetics. Fifth, Rushton does not represent even a significant minority of sociobiology. Most of us don't find racial issues important in our own work. We look more at individuals and families in their competitive interactions with others. PLEASE, try to avoid associating sociobiology with all unpleasant biological claims, theories, books, or researchers unless you are sure such a link exists. For those of you who are still knee-jerk anti-sociobiologists I suggest you take a look at M. Daly and M. Wilson (1987) Children as Homicide Victims *in* Gelles & Lancaster *Child Abuse and Neglect* and pay special attention to the short section entitled "A quick introduction to sociobiology (especially for social scientists who consider themselves informed skeptics)." Sixth, I haven't read Rushton's book so I'm not commenting on it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't comment on the subject of a particular work without reading it, but you ought not trash it. Also let me take this opportunity to state that I personally think race is a non-issue simply because my understanding of genetic clines suggests that race is a bogus typology. Last, someone brought up cultural relativism. Cultural relativism has nothing to do with the purported biological soundness of the concept of race. Let's try not to invoke relativism as a substitute for thoughtful critique. Rob Quinlan, Grad. Student, Dept. of Anthropology, U. of Missouri-Columbia C611417@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU
|