Taxonomy of Race? Construct or a biological reality?

Taxonomy of Race? A Social construct? A biological reality? Or is it both? *Challenger, sorry, Damien, but “We” didn’t separate ourselves – different continents and evolution that took place upon them, did. Damien, all people are 99.9 genetically identical in our genetic makeup. https://www.genome.gov/19016904/faq-about-genetic-and-genomic-science/ There is no taxonomy of races, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ *Challenger, read a book called, ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’ by Nicholas Wade. It’s about evolution so I know you’ll find it interesting. Damien, I will look into it. *Challenger, check out this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU&feature=youtu.be Damien, I looked into it and I am not interested in the book as it’s not supported by science. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-troubling-tome *Challenger, it is supported by science. Read the preface and you’ll find out why so many people came out so strongly against it. Here’s a good doc that will ease you into the genetics of race without going full race realist on race differences in cognitive ability. “Aarathi Prasad sets out to challenge the science of racial purity and examines provocative claims that there are in fact biological advantages to being mixed race.” https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=jhCuuw0vF64 Damien, did you check out the link I gave it rejects his claim and the same is true for the first link I gave. If He thinks different ok. Here is another link Science Says: There Is No Such Thing As Race! https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=4OPrLZ8pjOU *Challenger, it’s a form of religious thinking. If something doesn’t conform with our kumbaya world view, deny it. I grant her, that it might be helpful for human comradely to think in these terms, but just because these views...

The Rightist Four Step Solutions to Social Programs

The Rightist Four Step Solutions to Social Programs 1. Stop them from becoming laws or dismantling existing ones (i.e. seeking to remove or lessen current laws. 2. Stop them from becoming popular or undermining their popularity (i.e. reframing the issue or term negatively). 3. Stop them from power and control (i.e. privatising as much as possible or pushing their privatizing or competing privatization). 4. Stop them from resources (i.e. creating or allowing large deficits to give a pantic desire to cut anything seen as extra such as their favorite enemy “Social Programs/Social welfare” though they don’t seem to mind corporate...

All positions if questioned far enough are circular?

“We can say that at their core all positions are circular however this is not proof of the equalizations of all circular positions.”   I am stating this to address religion circular positions are not equal to the problem of deduction (reason) and the problem of induction (evidence) underlining all problems in philosophy, especially epistemology. Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are can be logically valid if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Skepticism, just as epistemological argument can show everything even science data if questioned far enough are circular ; but that does not mean all circular positions are equal, which is empiricism and both inductive and deductive reasoning to address problems. But no matter the proposed fact or reasoning all individually offered propositions cannot verify themselves; a priori assumptions are always used even if unrealized. Science in the scientific method use the a priori assumption of methodological naturalism (likely there is no supernatural at all). By using this instead of the stronger reality claim of metaphysical naturalism (there is no supernatural at all), science is acknowledging how all positions if questioned far enough are circular. All deductive systems, logic in particular and philosophy in general, rely on the truth of its axioms or premises. So the problem of deduction is really that it is impossible to know the truth of axioms without assuming some a priori “fountain of truth” on which to rely. While rationalism claims access...

Scientific Values: fallibilism, realism, & rationalism

Scientific theories, it has sometimes been maintained enable us to describe precisely how things happen, but cannot really explain why they happen as they do. According to this view (which I shall call ‘descriptivism’), the .search for explanation or for explanatory theories is an illegitimate intrusion of metaphysics into science. Descriptivism is related to (but not, as is often supposed, identical with) an even more radical view, which I shall call ‘instrumentalism’ (following Popper) or ‘fictionalism’. The instrumentalist agrees with the descriptivist that scientific theories are not explanatory but goes further, and denies that they are descriptive as well. Theories, according to the instrumentalist, are not descriptions of the world, but mathematical devices or fictions which enable us to classify, systematize and predict descriptions of the world. Opposed to both of these views is realism. My aim is to argue in favor of realism. And in general will favor a fallibilist, realistic, and rationalist position in opposition to the idealistic, antirealism and relativistic viewpoints some champion. From: Essays on Realism and Rationalism by Alan Musgrave Here is more on fallibilism: Fallibilism is the epistemological thesis that no belief (theory, view, thesis, and so on) can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way (that no evidence or reason can ever overturn it). Always, there remains a possible doubt as to the truth of the belief (ie. one is always open to valid and reliable reason and evidence that could disprove or deminish the belief). Fallibilism applies that assessment even to science’s best-entrenched claims and to people’s best-loved commonsense views. Some epistemologists have taken fallibilism to imply skepticism, though,...

Life Has no Meaning if You’re an Atheist?

Life Has no Meaning if You’re an Atheist? Not completely true, life has personal and social meaning but not universal meaning. But life doesn’t need universal meaning to hold or create meaning in life, we do it all the time most often without even trying. In fact prosocial interactions makes life meaning or “Fullness of Life/Emotional Wellbeing” an often unstated drive in life. To me respect not earned or freely offered is most likely fear. Where there is fear, one may be far from hope. Where there is hate, one may be far from love. Full respect should be generated to express a kind of love and hope. We seem to be our best when freely embracing love free of hate and respect free from fear. According to our early childhood education experts, pro-social behavior is when children show positive behaviors such as sharing, cooperating, empathy, and taking turns when interacting with others. These skills can help children build strong friendships and relationships and enable children to navigate different social circumstances in a constructive manner. Put differently, children experience many of the same emotional trials as adults – interpersonal conflict, the loss of loved ones, even the challenges of economic hardship are not lost on children. If a child is not given the emotional tools to handle those trials, they can have a lasting negative impact on his or her life. The more emotional education a child can receive at a young age, the better. If children’s behavioral problems are ignored, they are more likely to struggle in school and act out later in life. The value of encouraging “pro-social...