Tradition betrayed

[71 dB]

Enough of an expert to hold that it is not a real science though. Or so it seems.

I'll tell you how it seems: I haven't studied thing called racialism enough to evaluate how scientific it is. However, since science tends to develop over time, it is pretty clear that scientific racial beliefs of today should be better than those in Darwin's days.

[Josquin des Prez]

Again with this use of the word "better". Not to mention the use of the word "beliefs". Both very unfortunate choices.

[bwv 1080]

Well, don't feel shy, go right ahead and prove it. Remember, science is your god, not mine. This should be right along your alley.

you can start with the fact that the genetic differences are very small compared to the human population in total

In 1972 Richard Lewontin performed a FST statistical analysis using 17 markers including blood group proteins. His results were that the majority of genetic differences between humans, 85.4%, were found within a population, 8.3% of genetic differences were found between populations within a race, and only 6.3% was found to differentiate races which in the study were Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines. Since then, other analyses have found FST values of 6%-10% between continental human groups, 5-15% between different populations occupying the same continent, and 75-85% within populations.[23][24][25][26] Lewontin's argument led a number of authors publishing in the 1990s and 2000s to follow Lewontin's verdict that race is biologically a meaningless concept.
While acknowledging the correctness of Lewontin's observation that racial groups are genetically homogeneous, geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in the paper "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" (2003) argued that the conclusion that racial groups can not be genetically distinguished from each other is incorrect. Edwards argued that when multiple allelles are taken into account genetic differences do tend to cluster in geographic patterns roughly corresponding to the groups commonly defined as races. This is because most of the information that distinguishes populations from each other is hidden in the correlation structure of allele frequencies, making it possible to highly reliably classify individuals using the mathematical techniques described above. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously. Edwards saw Lewontin's argument as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. [4]
Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."[27]
Alan Templeton (2003) argued that in the nonhuman literature an FST of at least 25%-30% is a standard criterion for the identification of a subspecies.[24]
Henry Harpending (2002) has argued that the magnitude of human FST values imply that "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings. The widespread assertion that this is small and insignificant should be reexamined." [28]
Sarich and Miele (2004) have argued that estimates of genetic difference between individuals of different populations fail to take into account human diploidity. "The point is that we are diploid organisms, getting one set of chromosomes from one parent and a second from the other. To the extent that your mother and father are not especially closely related, then, those two sets of chromosomes will come close to being a random sample of the chromosomes in your population. And the sets present in some randomly chosen member of yours will also be about as different from your two sets as they are from one another. So how much of the variability will be distributed where? First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons. The increase in variability in between-population comparisons is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 is 32.5 percent, a much more impressive and, more important, more legitimate value than 15 percent."[29]
Anthropologists such as C. Loring Brace[30] and Jonathan Kaplan[31] and geneticist Joseph Graves[32], have argued that while there it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as races, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is therefore dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups the clusters become continental, if one had chosen other sampling patterns the clusters would be different. Weiss and Fullerton have noted that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form and all other populations could be described as being composed of admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan genetic materials.[33] Kaplan therefore argues that seen in this way both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments. He concludes that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. In this view racial groupings are social constructions that also have biological reality which is largely an artefact of how the category has been constructed.
[edit]Self-identified race/ethnic group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Lewontin.27s_argument_and_criticism

[Josquin des Prez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin's_fallacy%22_(scientific_paper)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879450

In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example.

The thing that bothers me is that the fallacy is so patently obvious that i doubt anybody would have been fooled by it unless the conclusion preceded the actual assumption. Racial differences have to be irrelevant, hence, here's an illogical fallacy that will fool those who want to be fooled.

Of course, none of this matters from a metaphysical point of view, which is why the traditionalist approach is superior to both the racist and anti-racist argument. Physical differences between the races are irrelevant when speaking of humanity from an higher point of view, because the characteristics that really matter, closeness to God, capacity for genius etc. are inherent among all races. The only point that one can concede when speaking of physical differences is that separation allows the races to maintain their own uniqueness, and this is probably desirable to a certain extend, if anything because people relate more instinctively with those closer to themselves, so cultural and spiritual unity is easier when populations are kept distinct from each other.

The problem facing the west is a peculiar one because on one side we have wanton aggression towards other cultures and races, particularly in the imposition of modernist western values over traditional ones (which other cultures did not ask for and are not all too happy about it), and on the other end this suicidal tendency towards cultural and racial accommodation of the very ethnic groups which have been victim of western aggression and are by and large hostile to the west and western values, an accommodation which has been possible only by downplaying and occasionally outright suppress the cultural and spiritual identity of the peoples of European ancestry. If this isn't a sign of a schizophrenic civilization, i don't know what is.   

[snyprrr]

When my step-father used to say-

"of course Africans can run faster and jump higher"

- is that what you're talking about?

[kishnevi]

This is so vast a topic that it would be to completely highjack this thread were we to discuss it in depth. I will only say that (1) the principle of not taking something which already belongs to someone else is just, but only insofar as that someone else himself gained its property by obeying the same rule (which in the case of inheritance, for instance, cannot be presumed a priori); (2) property rights, in contrast to life and liberty rights, are not individual but social and (3) the whole concept of natural and inalienable rights is hopelessly confused and contradictory and it could be used to argue not only for the minimal state of the libertarians but also for the welfare state of the liberals (think of the right to life, for instance: if people need the police and the military to protect them against internal and external threats to their life, then how much more do they need a clean environment, medical insurance and medical treatment to protect them against dangers no less real, clear and present, such as microbes, viruses and sickness? actually, most people in the Western world today live their whole life without ever being victim of a life-threatening attack or of an aggression war, but all are subject to the life-threatening effects of pollution and epidemics - ergo, "to secure the right to life" a government must see to it that citizens have clean air to breathe, pure water to drink and universal healthcare, three things that are anathema to libertarians...).

I'm assuming that you mean libertarians don't like government intervention in those matters.  At least, I don't know anyone, libertarian or not, who prefers dirty air and polluted water

But it's more precise to say that libertarians don't think those goals (including healthcare) need government bureaucratic intervention to be achieved (not to mention the possibilities of cronyism and corruption); most envisage some sort of scheme which is closely allied to the current law by which neighbors can sue each other in nuisance, etc. for pollution problems.  Universal healthcare is seen as a chimera in which government bureaucracy decides who lives and who dies (or at least who gets properly cared for and who doesn't), without any real improvement.  The best possible medical care in the world for everyone would require spending all the money in the world, and then some, to achieve.  Better, libertarians say, to leave it as much as possible to the individual to decide what sort of health care he/she can afford and what he/she actually needs.

Personally, I'm view the topic as a nearly insoluble problem, because I think that one's access to health care, and therefore one's ability to actually live, should not be tied to one's access to financial resources (either one's own, or through whatever insurance one can afford, or through the charity of whatever friends and relatives is available)--but what bothers me seems to be waved away as a non issue by most libertarians and conservatives.   Out of all the presidential candidates, for instance, now in the Republican field, it's only Ron Paul who showed some understanding of this point, when he remarked that throughout his practice as an MD, while he does not accept government funding via Medicare and Medicaid,  he's always ready to make his services available no matter what the ability to pay might be--and willingly allows those who can not pay to become charity cases (ie, he doesn't charge them).

Interestingly enough this (Ayn Rand's) is exactly the same type of response I get from communists when I criticize their doctrine: real communism has never actually existed, what we had was state capitalism or plain fascism, because (foreign) governments and (reactionary) political influence have always gotten in the way. But this means nothing else than elevating communism (or capitalism) to the status of an ideological fairy queen that nobody has ever seen and yet who is to solve all social and economical problems if only given a chance to tackle them.

The fact that Ayn Rand and her movement share some of the same structural elements as communism has often been remarked on.  Rand's roots in the Russian intellectual world immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution ran deep, even if she was never a Communist, and influenced her way of thinking far more than she ever admitted to.  Deep down, she seems to be a soul mate to Lenin and Trotsky, even though she was genuinely opposed to almost everything taught in the name of Communism.

[Florestan]

I'm assuming that you mean libertarians don't like government intervention in those matters.  At least, I don't know anyone, libertarian or not, who prefers dirty air and polluted water

Yes of course; a rather uninspired formulation from my part. 

The best possible medical care in the world for everyone would require spending all the money in the world, and then some, to achieve.  Better, libertarians say, to leave it as much as possible to the individual to decide what sort of health care he/she can afford and what he/she actually needs.

Yes, that's precisely the problem: quality medical care is expensive; what one needs and what one can afford are often two completely different things, at least for the common people.

Personally, I'm view the topic as a nearly insoluble problem, because I think that one's access to health care, and therefore one's ability to actually live, should not be tied to one's access to financial resources (either one's own, or through whatever insurance one can afford, or through the charity of whatever friends and relatives is available)

I agree.

The fact that Ayn Rand and her movement share some of the same structural elements as communism has often been remarked on.  Rand's roots in the Russian intellectual world immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution ran deep, even if she was never a Communist, and influenced her way of thinking far more than she ever admitted to.  Deep down, she seems to be a soul mate to Lenin and Trotsky, even though she was genuinely opposed to almost everything taught in the name of Communism.

True. 

[Herman]

Physical differences between the races are irrelevant when speaking of humanity from an higher point of view, because the characteristics that really matter, closeness to God, capacity for genius etc. are inherent among all races.

and how do you measure "closeness to God"?

[Josquin des Prez]

The ability to acquire real knowledge, metaphysical knowledge (metaphysics in this sense defined in traditional terms), which is not a function of IQ, which is merely the ability to deal with complex information (information being different from knowledge). Since everything that is real is connected to God in one way or another, this ability to acquire real knowledge will eventually lead one closer and closer to God. 

To wit, one could argue that American Indians could not compete with their European conquerors in terms of generalized IQ (not saying this is actually the case, never saw a study on the matter), but one thing that can be argued is that they were a lot closer to the Absolute that Europeans ever were in that point in time, and have been since. So superior intelligence, whether this be the case, does not at any rate equal superiority in terms of what it means to be human. Not for nothing when Gandhi was asked what he thought of European civilization, he replied that "it would be a good idea".

[Florestan]

To see JdP berating Europeans and European civilization... truly the endtimes are near. 

Now about that Gandhi quote: it is perfectly understandable that after decades of humiliation he uttered it; but I don't think Europe can be taught a lesson in civilization by a country where, prior to the advent of Europeans, widows and servants were burnt alive on the deceased husband's stake, or were even now dirt and squalor are are the lot of the multitudes.

[Josquin des Prez]

To see JdP berating Europeans and European civilization... truly the endtimes are near. 

Modern Europeans and modern European civilization. When Indian culture first merged with western, Hellenistic culture, it produced an infusion of values and ideas into the east which had an enriching, rather then decaying, quality. I wonder how many easterners actually know that the plastic, anthropomorphic effigies of the Buddha were first carved by Greek artists.

But look at it now. Western culture for the grand majority of the world derives from the sewers of Hollywood, and its influence is corrupting those few cultures who still clung to their traditions.

[71 dB]

Western culture for the grand majority of the world derives from the sewers of Hollywood.

The most commercial surface perhaps but culture is so much more than that.

[Josquin des Prez]

The most commercial surface perhaps but culture is so much more than that.

High western culture is commercial too (it is the almighty dollar that rules in high profile artistic circles). The west is spiritually and culturally bereft of anything of value whatsoever.

[71 dB]

High western culture is commercial too (it is the almighty dollar that rules in high profile artistic circles). The west is spiritually and culturally bereft of anything of value whatsoever.

More of your simplistic black & white views of the world. Please dig deeper and find the real culture...

[Herman]

The ability to acquire real knowledge, metaphysical knowledge (metaphysics in this sense defined in traditional terms), which is not a function of IQ, which is merely the ability to deal with complex information (information being different from knowledge). Since everything that is real is connected to God in one way or another, this ability to acquire real knowledge will eventually lead one closer and closer to God. 

From start to finish you're constantly committing petitio principii, or circular reasoning.

So in the above, who determines what is 'real' knowledge?

Who determines what is God?

The idea, obviously, is that you get to say what is "real' knowledge. You're constructing a quasi-philosophical pyramid scheme with yourself well on top.

[Josquin des Prez]

So in the above, who determines what is 'real' knowledge?

Who determines what is God?

You do. That's the whole point.

[jowcol]

You do. That's the whole point.

From the Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam:

I sent my soul into the invisible,

Some letter of that after life to spell.

And by and by my soul returned to me

And answered, I myself am heaven and hell.

[Josquin des Prez]

Now about that Gandhi quote: it is perfectly understandable that after decades of humiliation he uttered it; but I don't think Europe can be taught a lesson in civilization by a country where, prior to the advent of Europeans, widows and servants were burnt alive on the deceased husband's stake, or were even now dirt and squalor are are the lot of the multitudes.

Gandhi was talking about civilization from a traditional point of view, in which he was partially correct. There is no doubt that the west is peerless in its conquering of the material world, but that's pretty much all they have left now.

The difference between India and Europe is that the first was already a civilization dying of old age, even before the British vandalized it, but was a civilization nonetheless, in a traditional sense. The west on the other end is a young civilization bent on the destruction, first of tradition, then of everything else (including itself). Modernism is a disintegrating force, not a constructive one (it "liberates", it never sets down). The danger the west posed to the world was not based on its domineering and predatory habits, it was because of its insistence on spreading "civilization" (which, alas, meant modern civilization) buttressed by the irresistible lure of the splendors of its material conquests, against which tradition, which is based on more introspective values, could not hope to compete. The disparity in material comfort between the west and the rest of the world and the envy and the lust it enticed were just too inebriating for traditional values to resit.

So now the entire world is more or less "civilized", and everywhere tradition is in swift retreat.

[Florestan]

@ Josquin

When all is said and done, several things remain.

1. You are better fed, better housed, better clothed and have access to better medical care than most people in the traditional societies. Additionally you and your property are protected by law and law-enforcing agencies against all kind of fraud and violence, a protection that most people in traditional societies can only dream of.

2. Consequently, you have much more spare time than most people in those societies.

3. This fact allows you to freely pursue your artistic and intellectual interests.

4. You do that by making use of another feature of modern civilization: the unprecedented availability and affordability of relevant information and knowledge - whatever book or CD you want or need, you have it.

5. You constantly complain about, and criticize, the society you live in; but you lose sight of the fact that you are free to either try to change it or leave it for one that be more to your taste - and this is another stark contrast to most people in traditional societies who do not have this option.

[kishnevi]

[What's the emoticon for "hearty applause?]

To add one other thing: if it was that easy for modern civilization to "defeat" tradition, than "tradition" probably wasn't worth that much in the first place.