The ten commandments of biological egalitarianism have been issued

[Josquin des Prez]

http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/7/404

Welcome to the age of scientific religion. Be sure you show the due reverence to the high priests who signed this document, the thought police may be watching.

[karlhenning]

Right. You would 'have issues with' something as straightforward as We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity.

[Dr. Dread]

We're all in the same gang.

[Florestan]

As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate

"Not open to debate" is a strange dictum coming, as it were, from scientists. But then again, this is an ideological, not a scientific statement.

Scientific data are often quickly politicized and incorporated into specific policy agendas without extensive explanation of the scientific research and its details. Often lost in the announcement of scientific findings is discussion of the limitations of the research

Ah, yes, that's only too true. Humanly provoked global warming anyone?

[karlhenning]

As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate

"Not open to debate" is a strange dictum coming, as it were, from scientists. But then again, this is an ideological, not a scientific statement.

Good call.

[Josquin des Prez]

Right. You would 'have issues with' something as straightforward as We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity.

I have "issues" with scientists perpetrating a fraud in the name of "social justice", or whatever floats around their atrophied brains. Nothing in this letter is based on anything even remotely resembling science. It's an entirely political inflated document spewing baseless misconceptions as if they were axiomatic. Worst of all, those aren't fringe liberal extremists, these are well respected mainstream researchers perpetrating a blatant falsification of the facts based on their own ideological prejudice.

[drogulus]

"Not open to debate" is a strange dictum coming, as it were, from scientists. But then again, this is an ideological, not a scientific statement.

    I think "normative commitment" is meant to cover that. As an ideological statement it's meant to convey opposition to ideological statements based on false or mischaracterized science. I don't see anything objectionable about it. Pseudoscientific racialism is not something made up by scientists, and it is dangerous.

   

[drogulus]

I have "issues" with scientists perpetrating a fraud in the name of "social justice", or whatever floats around their atrophied brains. Nothing in this letter is based on anything even remotely resembling science. It's an entirely political inflated document spewing baseless misconceptions as if they were axiomatic. Worst of all, those aren't fringe liberal extremists, these are well respected mainstream researchers perpetrating a blatant falsification of the facts based on their own ideological prejudice.

    They are not fringe extremists, true. They are opposed to the fringe extremist interpretations of race. And I don't see anything illicit in a political intervention warning against the politicization of science. It is political to warn against abuses.

[Josquin des Prez]

They are opposed to the fringe extremist interpretations of race. And I don't see anything illict in a political intervention warning against the politicization of science.

Except they are the ones who are politicizing science, no one else. The extremist fringe whom they appear to be crusading against has always been a figment of their own imagination. They are appealing to their own authority as scientists to make a political statement which has nothing to do with science. How is this not unethical?

extremist interpretations of race

Extremist interpretation of race being, that the is such a thing as race.

As an ideological statement it's meant to convey opposition to ideological statements based on false or mischaracterized science.

A false mischaracterization of science which they themselves have invented. They are arguing against a strawman of their own making.

[Florestan]

    I think "normative commitment" is meant to cover that. As an ideological statement it's meant to convey opposition to ideological statements based on false or mischaracterized science. I don't see anything objectionable about it.

What is objectionable is wrapping purely ideological statements in the cover of science.

The authors themselves are only too aware of that, because they start with the following:

The equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by descriptive, scientific findings

This a clear recognition of the fact that equality has nothing to do with science (i.e, facts) and everything to do with ideology (i.e, values). But then again this is yesterday's news since at least David Hume.

[snyprrr]

The coming world religion IS gonna be a doozy, wrapped as I'm sure it will be, in a four out of five scientists agree... the fifth one dying in a mysterious accident/suicide, of course...

...the intolerant of intolerance crowd...

and if anyone saw that NBC special "Earth 2100", you already know what one of their sermons sounds like

I REFUSE TO RECYCLE, SO THERE!!!

[drogulus]

What is objectionable is wrapping purely ideological statements in the cover of science.

The authors themselves are only too aware of that, because they start with the following:

This a clear recognition of the fact that equality has nothing to do with science (i.e, facts) and everything to do with ideology (i.e, values). But then again this is yesterday's news since at least David Hume.

    You object to the scientists agreeing with you about values not being questioned by scientific results? They are not wrapping this in the false authority of science. That is explicitly not what they are doing by the plain meaning of their words. If they had said that it is a scientific truth that all men are created equal you would be justified in accusing them of "scientism", of promoting values as facts, and additionally of having no evidence that could justify such a claim, as well as ignoring voluminous evidence leading to the opposite conclusion. The scientists are saying that nothing in science supports racialist attempts to cancel these value claims, that the sources of inequality are a matter of individual and cultural differences.

    Hume is correct: Values are not facts. The scientists are saying the racialists are using bad science as a wedge against values they wish to overturn, and that this is an illicit move for reasons you should agree with. The ideology of freedom and equality has prospered for a long time, and during that time many different competing views have been advanced about whether various races are different in capacities. No plausible outcome of investigations into the genetics of race will change this.

   

[Florestan]

    If they had said that it is a scientific truth that all men are created equal you would be justified in accusing them of "scientism", of promoting values as facts, and additionally of having no evidence that could justify such a claim, as well as ignoring voluminous evidence leading to the opposite conclusion.

You do agree, then, that equality is not a scientific concept and that, on the contrary, there is massive evidence for inequality, don't you?

[drogulus]

You do agree, then, that equality is not a scientific concept and that, on the contrary, there is massive evidence for inequality, don't you?

     Yes, it's not a scientific concept. It has meaning under the law and political theory. The scientists are saying that what they discover about what makes people different does not change the value commitments that we've chosen, which don't depend on persons being identical in aptitudes or abilities. Political equality benefits everyone, the theory states, by not burdening people of lesser abilities with a double handicap, and permitting people of extraordinary abilities to develop them to the fullest regardless of their race or social class. It's interesting to note that these commitments came into being at a time when most people thought that races were not equal in any respect.

     You could say that there is an element of political correctness to the statement. Perhaps scientists want to underplay any differences out of fear that they will be magnified out of proportion. Even so, I think they are correct.

     I also have a bit of a problem about "not open to debate". I don't think the meaning of scientific results is ever closed to debate, and neither is the meaning of basic political and ethical concepts. The best statement of their position is the one Karl quoted:

We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity.

   

[karlhenning]

I only wish the entire article were that sound, Ernie.

[Florestan]

     The best statement of their position is the one Karl quoted:

Yes, and it starts with "We believe", that is, it's an article of faith.

IMO, recognizing the obvious reality that different human races do exist and that, due to their particular biological, climateric, religious, moral and intellectual environment, their capacities and strengths are, generally speaking, different, even to the point of having divisions within the same race, is not racist in the least. What is so reprehensible in stating that a certain branch of African peoples is particularly good at athletics, or that the Nordic peoples are much more intraverted and have much more ordered societies than the extraverted, anarchic Mediterranean peoples, or that Jews  have the lion's share in the scientific Nobel prizes? Anyone who watches the Olympic Games, or who has traveled across Europe, or who has internet connection can notice that.

Racism begins when these differences are made the basis of the social and political organization of the society and state. Actually, racism is much older than claimed and if you want an ancient example of racism, exclusion and intolerance just read the last chapters of the Book of Ezra in the Old Testament.

[snyprrr]

What, putting away the strange wives?