Re: Is my CS instructor nuts?

In article <1150725428.733059.101660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx says...
Gerry Quinn wrote:

ALL measurements are statistical - and the evidence of genetic
variation between geographical lineages of the human species is utterly
overwhelming. Are you genuinely attempting to deny that the obvious
inherited differences in colour and body shape - the physically obvious
differences that have been noted since prehistory - don't exist? Of
course there are numerous less directly obvious variations too - blood
group, lactose tolerance, etc.

What's interesting about these "differences" is that they have no
theory to back them up except racism.

Empirical evidence precedes theory (if we take as read some basic
assumptions concerning metaphysical realism). And that is really all
that needs to be said about that.

In speaking of "obvious" differences in "color and body shape" you are
unscientifically reasoning from pictures of standard individuals when
the very idea that a representative "type" of the "Asian" or "European"
or "African" is of recent, and 19th-century racist, provenance. Prior
images had emphasized differences in dress and custom. Even in the case
of Africans, Renaissance art and literature was in fact more aware that
there was a smooth gradation in color from north to south (the
smoothness of gradation being a fact which argues against "innate"
differences, by the way).

That somebody emphasises X is no indication of the non-existence of Y.
As for the fact that in many cases a smooth geographical gradation in
skin colour is seen, that in no way indicates whether an individual's
skin colour is due more to innate (i.e. genetic) attributes or to
environmental factors such as the strength of the sun. [As all but
idiots know, both are significant, and it is possible to conclude
beyond even unreasonable doubt that both exist.]

People are surprised to learn that Keanu Reeves is "half" Chinese and
many German daughters of German mothers and "black" American GIs get to
choose their race: the differences by which you set such racist store
are bred out in a single generation!

Non-sequitur. The old fallacy in which the existence of grey is used
to argue for the non-existence of black and white.

Or are you asserting that these may exist, but some force prevents
inherited factors having an influence on specific other phenotypical
properties? What force might this be? And why are statistical
variations found even after its presumed operation?

The statistical variations have to do with colonial oppression.

You are saying that certain variations do exist, but that the obvious
variations in colour etc. - variations that everyone can see - don't?
This is madness.

A person who speaks of "variations" is a racist because he's addressing
a phenomenon which has so many cofactors, including such historically
confirmable cofactors as the brutalization of Africa by Europe, that
any talk based on that phenomenon is bull***.

It seems we must choose between being 'racists' according to your
individualistic definition of the term (which apparently includes
recognition of the fact of racial variation), and being liars. [Or, if
we are not liars, clinically insane.]

Yes.

Fortunately, we are not obliged to define racism as you do (recognition
of racial variation). Thus we have no need to choose between being
liars (as some choose) and insane (as you choose).

Human beings share the same genome, therefore "variations", even if
observed and confirmed under controlled conditions (an impossibility
given self-reflexivity, that is the knowledge of the observer that
she's being observed, an impossibility given history which means that
no starting conditions exist) have no explanation EXCEPT, in the case
of negative variations, history in the form of colonialist and other
forms of oppression, and no predictive value because fortunately,
colonialism is not a given.

If the expression 'genome' is used in the sense incorporating the
variations shared by the human race, then humans share the same genome.
But obviously this does not in any way contradict the notion of
variation!

IF they share the same genome, THEN they are a single species and the
"variations" can only be explained by physical environment and by
history.

Drivel. The word 'genome' in a species context includes variations.
In many cases, there are more than two common versions of a particular
gene, and in such cases NO individual shares the species genome in its
entirety.

All human beings produce melanin and white folks still try to look like
black folks even with the ozone hole. Skin color is no more "innate"
than different color fur for the animals.

Indeed, the principles governing variations in animal fur colour [and
people have fur in places too, with the colour and texture showing
noticeable geographic variation] are quite similar in general terms to
those governing variations in human skin colour. Melanin is present in
humans and most animal species, and both human skin colour and animal
fur colour are largely - though not wholly - the consequence of melanin
expression. As with human skin colour, animal fur colour is governed
by genetic and environmental factors. As with human skin colour,
inherited traits tend to be found in conjunction with other inherited
traits. We recognise Siamese cats or Friesian cows by their colours
and patterns, and we expect that those demonstrating the characteristic
patterns are likely to display other traits associated with the
pattern.

However, it is not given to these authorities to adjudicate on what is
or is not scientific fact. By standard definitions of science, nobody
can.

You know where I've heard this piece of bull***?

The pages of the Wall Street Journal, in which two "professors" at an
unknown institution funded by energy companies, who loudly proclaimed
that the authorities, imaged as politically correct cry-babies, could
not legislate scientific fact.

And they can't. Even if the report by these professors was false or
misleading, it does not prove that every statement in it was false.
That even applies to posts by you, though it may be difficult to find
counterexamples in this case.

In fact, it IS "given to the authorities", as a practical matter, the
privilege to adjudicate scientific fact.

The US patent office does so every day. It refuses applications to
patent a *perpetuum mobile".

Tripe. The patent offioce no more legislates the second law of
thermodynamics than building regulations legislate the constant of
gravity. [In fact the patent office normally ignores scientific views
on the workability of inventions, but makes an exception for perpetual
motion devices simply because so many cranks attempt to patent them.]

Science, to be applied, has to be "legislated". It can't, as Feynman
pointed out, violate the laws of nature as agreed upon by a community
of scientists which excludes fools.

I would guess that the words of Feynman begin at "it" and end at
"nature" in the above statement, and that the surrounding drivel
constitutes the words of Nilges.

Note, incidentally, that the actual content of the paragraph above
indicates not that the HK authorities discuss the issue of innate
differences, but that they prohibit discussion of the issue.

Again, you are lying. The approved texts raise the issue and the
teacher's guides recommend that time be set aside for discussion.

Your description ends "these systems require the teacher to reject all
talk of "innate" differences.".

In other words, it is prohibited to discuss them. Notice how it does
not say "the teacher is required to deny the existence of innate
differences". Instead, the teacher is required to frame the discussion
in terms of allegedly scientific systems that reject the concept.

If an alternative concept of equivalent semantic value is available,
that is not a problem. We don't need to concern ourselves that
phlogiston is not accepted as a concept in chemistry, because we have
other concepts that include all purported properties of phlogiston and
can be used for the objective discussion of any issues in which it
might be invoked.

Arguably, 'innate differences' is not a very good expression, and
something more precisely couched in the language of statistics and
genetics would be better. Somehow I have a feeling that this is not
the case here; that the purpose of the instruction is to neuter the
language sufficiently that anodyne and doubtfully valid interpretations
of the science can be imposed without argument.

This may very well be an excellent policy. Social cohesion is much
more important than teaching children valid science.

However, there is one right answer: that biology confirms the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and finds NO scientific reason to credit
ANY talk of "innate" (which is to say, confirming a coherent theory)
differences.

Muy il se muevo. We can consistently measure them, and demonstrate
that they are inherited via the germ line. All the political
declarations in the world cannot alter that.

Oh, so perhaps you believe that white geeks represent a higher form of
humanity?

'Higher' expresses a moral or aesthethic rather than a scientific
judgement - if I were to make that claim I would have to justify it on
grounds unrelated to science. And in fact I do not make it, nor do I
believe it. I do believe that the the average values of many human
qualities we value vary between the geographical lineages, with no
lineage having pre-eminence in all or even most.

Spoken like a true Creationist sleaze, not that you're a Creationist:
but in the register "oh, I am such a CIVILIZED person, I am so myself
EVOLVED, that I have rediscovered innate differences, but I will be
ever so nice about it.:

Perhaps it's time you evolved too.

Someone who valued the qualities possessed by 'white geeks' (whatever
they are) above all others would probably believe that white geeks
represented a higher form of humanity. As would somebody who believed
that white geeks possessed all desirable qualities in special
abundance. Both - irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of
their judgements - would be described as 'racists' in the conventional
sense of the word, in that they make moral distinctions between
identified races.

Modern racism in fact evolved from "scientific" and "value free" 19th
century theories.

Human theories do not evolve in the same way as species - they have far
more multiple roots.

Jay Gould was mostly famous for a theory of sudden evolutionary jumps,
nowadays in less favour. He is a poor name to bring up, as his
contributions to the debate on human variation were often dishonest.

Fucking sleaze bag. You haven't read THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY
THEORY so you call Gould a liar. You are scared of a man standing up to
an unjust "letter of non rehire" so you call him a liar.

Liar, liar, liar: the dead-end charge of the intellectually bankrupt.
It's a charge which stops the "debate" and turns it into a personality
campaign, because logically, if your opponent is a liar, why did you
debate him (cf Gadamer).

If you want to bring up any particular assertion by Jay Gould, I will
debate it on its own merits.

(2) Given our knowledge of the genome, if there was any evidence for
evolution within homo sapiens sapiens, I'm sure it would be like
details at eleven. Unfortunately for you it is not. All you have is
statistical evidence which has to be interpreted by thugs and morons
ignorant of colonialism to lend ANY weight to ANY claim of further
evolution.

As I've said before, ALL evidence is statistical. For those interested
in science, it IS like 'details at eleven'. [I presume you mean
evidence about particular evolutionary matters - the fact that humans
have evolved and will continue to evolve is undisputed among scientists
other than those committed to 'intelligent design', and perhaps a few
other cranks.]

This is the racist proposition at the heart of much California "new
age" thinking, thinking that has created nothing more than cults and
mass suicides: that SOME people, mostly Nordic whites with a California
tan and beach property, are oh, so evolved that they represent a new
species, or will as soon as evvabody drink de Kool-Aid that the guru
has whipped up.

I don't know anyone who believes they are members of a new species; I
certainly have not suggested that man is about to radically change, or
to diverge into separate species.

Unfortunately, it is disproved when any Asian or African understands
human mathematics.

That humanity - like any other species - must be evolving, is not a
proposition that is affected in any way by somebody grasping
mathematics.

You've failed to notice that species can't communicate any more than
they can mate except in very controlled situations. Your problem is
that Asians and Africans need only the in-principle (not "statistical")
ability to beat your ass at chess or software in only ONE instance to
prove you wrong.

You seem to be misrepresenting me as having a belief (when I've clearly
stated the opposite) that mankind is comprised of several species, only
some of whom are capable of math, and that 'Africans' and 'Asians' are
two of the species. Which of course is nonsense, and relates in no way
to what I have said.

[Species, incidentally, are a good deal less well-defined than you
imagine. Look up 'ring species', for example.]

India has just legislated the removal of any reference to the eating of
cow in textbooks by ancient Hindus because Hindu fundamentalists can't
stand the idea that their ancestors may have had a few cow burgers.
Before you get another hard-on, you should realize that leaving the
reference out, keeping it in, or even having a page labeled "yo, did
our forefathers eat beef, or what?" is LEGISLATING SCIENCE.
Unfortunately for the Hindoo fundies, dotty British archeologists
(without an axe to grind) had discovered that ancient Indians snarfed
cow...and that Buddha was a real guy.

And so you again undermine every single one of your propositions, and
cannot even see it. These Hindu fundamentalists have apparently
achieved sufficient power to take part in legislating the contents of
textbooks to remove ideas they consider disturbing (and they wonlt be
the only ones with an input). But the textbooks can't touch the
science per se.

Let me note, however, that I started off by saying precisely that this
subject was likely to be unsuited to introductory biology classes, just
as Zionism is unsuited to introductory courses on world religion.

(And indeed, it may not be a particularly good idea to enliven Indian
history classes with discussion of beef recipes.)

Exactly wrong. It's the introductory classes where the ignorant have to
be enlightened. The discussion has to be in 101, otherwise the students
are damaged.

The old Jesuit principle. By "damaged" you mean "have not had
eliminated the ability to reason in a manner I consider inappropriate,
once they have learned enough to be able usefully to reason at all".

- Gerry Quinn

.

Quantcast