Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Why is this pseudoscientific dishonestly allowed? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]kidd rune[/m] at 11:01 pm on June 27, 2009[quote][img]img.cgi?i=37518[/img] What is this? The top right is the only REAL person -- the others are just clones with some coloring and a little bit of alteration. Why do they have to lie like this to make their failed point seem true? Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post kidd rune Posted at 11:01 pm on June 27, 2009 What is this? The top right is the only REAL person -- the others are just clones with some coloring and a little bit of alteration. Why do they have to lie like this to make their failed point seem true? Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying.

Replies Laurence Posted at 4:56 pm on July 19, 2009 I have said all I had to say and am done with this discussion. kidd rune Posted at 3:22 pm on July 19, 2009 I certainly did not. It is the prerogative of scientists, almost their duty to ask pointed questions and revise given assumptions, especially popular ones. Though they had no true science in their article, just popular opinions (Which have little if any scientific basis) and biased claims. I do not about the AGS but National Geographic certainly does. This does not mean NG is inaccurate. Simply that these journals are willing to ask questions and opne them up to the public. Apparently you are unaware  that Scientific American is designed more as a magazine to teach and educate than a collection of scholarly ground breaking papers. Your description and comments regarding this magazine shows you have never read anything alse from that magazine except this article. Even the more scientific journals such as Science do cover controversial topics and ask questions. The bulk of research is simply an answer to questions which are sometimes only discussed in the abstract or the introduction of the paper. The question of race is one that is continuing to be pondered by scientists. Scientific American is opening up some of the questions researchers are studying to the American public in terms they understand. Obviously you haven't understood what I said. I never said asking questions is wrong - but their deliberate falsification of facts, unsupported opinions, and unnatural alterations is. Though you should agree National Geographic is based off of real geography - not what people generally think our world is about. Sure, it's directed towards that audience, but they will not make up requirements. Laurence Posted at 2:17 pm on July 19, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 2:22 pm on July 19, 2009 You ignore the other word in the article, Scientific. I certainly did not. It is the prerogative of scientists, almost their duty to ask pointed questions and revise given assumptions, especially popular ones. I'm sure the American Geographical Society doesn't go by what is generally known by the US population to fill their website. I do not about the AGS but National Geographic certainly does. This does not mean NG is inaccurate. Simply that these journals are willing to ask questions and opne them up to the public. Apparently you are unaware  that Scientific American is designed more as a magazine to teach and educate than a collection of scholarly ground breaking papers. Your description and comments regarding this magazine shows you have never read anything alse from that magazine except this article. Even the more scientific journals such as Science do cover controversial topics and ask questions. The bulk of research is simply an answer to questions which are sometimes only discussed in the abstract or the introduction of the paper. The question of race is one that is continuing to be pondered by scientists. Scientific American is opening up some of the questions researchers are studying to the American public in terms they understand. kidd rune Posted at 1:22 pm on July 19, 2009 You ignore the other word in the article, Scientific. Now, how is the general idea of the often ignorant US population, as well as the Brazillian(Not American) and South African(No American) populations relevant to science? It isn't. Just as the general American idea of the world isn't relevant to geography. I'm sure the American Geographical Society doesn't go by what is generally known by the US population to fill their website. It's not like most Americans know much about geography. How many can name each state? I can. How many each country? Not I, but does that invalidate the concept of different countries, or the names and locations of the countries today? Hell no. What they did was add "Scientific" to their title, and jumped from science to average. Sadly, average is not informed. Which is probably why some fell for this crap. Not only is it misinforming, it is entirely biased. "Too recently" and "too much" is not an opinion, hell no. They could say "Some scientists claim.... While others disagree" They don't. It's not science, it's bullshit. Nothing in this article is of any value, nor does it lead me to question anything, as I have an answer to anything remotely relevant and it does not denote the concept of race. Laurence Posted at 12:14 am on July 19, 2009 I hate to point this out to you but this article was from Scientific American. Thus the fact that it uses the US definition of race is not a strawman. It is uses the definition of race familiar to Americans and questions it in fact. I can see however, that contrary to your original claim, you do give "two shits" about replying. If you wish to read some grand conspiracy or nefarious intention based on a simple artistic rendition on the cover of a magazine it is your prerogative. Do not pretend however that you do not care. You seem to care very deeply on the matter. Much more than the picture or even the article itself actually warrants in fact. kidd rune Posted at 7:27 pm on July 18, 2009 What "clim". Remember the title of the article was a question Do you object to questions? How can a question be "dishonest"? The claims I already pointed out. Their strawman arguments, their opinionated claims such as "major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much." What is the "normal" definition of race? As it is there does seem to be many different ways in which races are delimited. A race is a group of people that can be separated/distinguished from others through genetic and/or morphological traits to put it simply. They have a unique location, unique history, have similar phenotypic characteristics, are easily recognisable (Does not have to be true for the general population), and have similar genetic traits. Usually, they can be clustered together using genetic data, which has been done with the major races. Clearly you seem quite upset by the questions raised by this article. Aren't scientists suppose to raise questions? To test the accpeted? To defy the conventions? Must scientists treat their subject like an immutable faith? This my frined would not longer be science but blind faith. Questions are okay, I have no objection. But basing the question on pure fiction? This is what I oppose. They outright lie about race, and add meaningless details and attempt to add meaning to them. It's entirely dishonest. Not only that, they could have put 6 pictures of people of different populations on the front page at least. Instead, they added one person and 5 based off of that one. Repeating yourself alone does not prove your point unfortunately. Thank you for taking my text out of context and quoting a specific portion to make it seem as if you replied to my point when you didn't. Yes. Oftentimes artisitc renditions are not meant to be exact but to strike he imagination and raise questions. It is a poor mind who cannot accept questions and challenges to accepted ideas. So why do they attempt to make the races look more similar than they actually are? Can you give a good reason why they would do this? Is it honesty or dishonesty? Kidd, have you ever heard of using pictures to make a point? Do you truly believe any reader of scientific amerrican is so uninformed and naive to believe that this picture was real? Only an ignorant fool would think that such a picture was meant to be actual and "scientific". Only an ignorant fool would deliberately make the faces look more similar than genetically possible (Assuming these people were meant to illustrate other races, which they failed to do) to try to add "Questioning" when they conclude "the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist." At this point in time there is actually no truly "mainstream work" regarding the scientific basis for race. The scientific community is heavily divided on this issue and each side is calling the other's work and methods "pseudoscientific". Nonetheless this article was not taking sides as you seem to believe but raising pointed questions. Without the possiblity for raising questions no true scientific progress can be made/ Getting yourself in an emotional upheaval over the issue does not help anyone find answeres but muddles the problem with inordinate passion. Well you seem to have taken it from one level to 20 higher. I wasn't in "Emotional upheaval" nor was I attacking it for raising questions. What I don't agree with is the faulty claims made. Their opinionated work, deliberate "Artistic influence" to images, giving only one side of the debate, defining race their own way, and numerous other claims. The fact that they used government definitions of race to define it takes away the scientific aspect of it. Really, in the USA, you could say you were any race you want. I've said I was Black on the PSAT just to get free scholarships. They don't care what you do. In the USA, a race is a label you choose to put on yourself that nobody will do anything about no matter what you put. In the USA, race is not race. Laurence Posted at 2:38 pm on July 18, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 10:55 am on July 18, 2009 It giving dishonest claims What "clim". Remember the title of the article was a question Do you object to questions? How can a question be "dishonest"? Again, it does not define race how normally defined, so it's beating a strawman. What is the "normal" definition of race? As it is there does seem to be many different ways in which races are delimited. The entire article was read, and it wasn't the least bit question raising - besides of course why they would write such a load of shit. Clearly you seem quite upset by the questions raised by this article. Aren't scientists suppose to raise questions? To test the accpeted? To defy the conventions? Must scientists treat their subject like an immutable faith? This my frined would not longer be science but blind faith. I will repeat. Repeating yourself alone does not prove your point unfortunately. 6 pictures of women "Artistically" made to look more similar, with the question "Does race exist?" on the front does not try to show small differences between races? Yes. Oftentimes artisitc renditions are not meant to be exact but to strike he imagination and raise questions. It is a poor mind who cannot accept questions and challenges to accepted ideas. Why didn't they use actual pictures of people, or made them more realistic and accurate? Kidd, have you ever heard of using pictures to make a point? Do you truly believe any reader of scientific amerrican is so uninformed and naive to believe that this picture was real? Only an ignorant fool would think that such a picture was meant to be actual and "scientific". "Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline." At this point in time there is actually no truly "mainstream work" regarding the scientific basis for race. The scientific community is heavily divided on this issue and each side is calling the other's work and methods "pseudoscientific". Nonetheless this article was not taking sides as you seem to believe but raising pointed questions. Without the possiblity for raising questions no true scientific progress can be made/ Getting yourself in an emotional upheaval over the issue does not help anyone find answeres but muddles the problem with inordinate passion. kidd rune Posted at 10:55 am on July 18, 2009 Are you only interested in the Science which matches your onw belief system? Why would you not find this article interesting? It's irrelevant to my belief system. It giving dishonest claims, and it's not interesting nor is it rare or informing. One could say the same of your own definition and conclusions. However this not make it  "pseudo-science". Let me remind you of the definition seudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status Please show how the article itself is "pseudoscience" based on this defintion. Unless of course you have another definition for pseudoscience you have not shared yet. Instead of dissecting each sentence to try to find fault you could have read the entire article in context. I gave the link. Not much effort on your part was needed. This article is meany to raise questions and elicit thought. It was not meant as a "proof" that race does not exist or some hardline extreme view at one end or the other in a debate. Please do not make it into more or less than it is. Pseudoscientific generally means it has no scientific basis - and it doesn't. Again, it does not define race how normally defined, so it's beating a strawman. It doesn't speak of race anyway, just something they felt like defining their own way. The entire article was read, and it wasn't the least bit question raising - besides of course why they would write such a load of shit. It ignores what race truly is and defines it how it wants, I will repeat. This is a strawman, and that lacks any scientific value. No. The picture is a simple artistic rendition cover to attract readership. Please do not try to read more than that. This would certainly constitute a strawman. 6 pictures of women "Artistically" made to look more similar, with the question "Does race exist?" on the front does not try to show small differences between races? Come on Laurence, use your brain. Why didn't they use actual pictures of people, or made them more realistic and accurate? If you want a good reason why the article is pseudoscience, check out your own source, wiki. "Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline." This is what they did with the term "Race." Perfect example. Laurence Posted at 12:45 am on July 18, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 3:25 pm on July 17, 2009 What's so interesting about it? Are you only interested in the Science which matches your onw belief system? Why would you not find this article interesting? It identifies race from a faulty viewpoint, defining race their own way, and showing how this is wrong. Strawman. One could say the same of your own definition and conclusions. However this not make it  "pseudo-science". Let me remind you of the definition Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status Please show how the article itself is "pseudoscience" based on this defintion. Unless of course you have another definition for pseudoscience you have not shared yet. Instead of dissecting each sentence to try to find fault you could have read the entire article in context. I gave the link. Not much effort on your part was needed. This article is meany to raise questions and elicit thought. It was not meant as a "proof" that race does not exist or some hardline extreme view at one end or the other in a debate. Please do not make it into more or less than it is. The picture is a representation - they are trying to make each of the people look similar. No. The picture is a simple artistic rendition cover to attract readership. Please do not try to read more than that. This would certainly constitute a strawman. MisBHaved Posted at 2:40 pm on July 17, 2009 race exists. kidd rune Posted at 2:25 pm on July 17, 2009 Quote: from Laurence at 2:36 am on July 11, 2009 Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying. Judging from the length of the thread (7 pages) so far I would say the OP does seem to give much more than "two shits".     In fact if the OP truly did not care he would not have bothered labelling a simple picture as "dishonest". How can a picture obviously designed for shock and publicity to attract readership be termed "pseudoscientific" or "dishonest". Such pictures in any cover of a popular magazine, even a scientific one, are never intended to be accurate or representative. Of much greater interest is the content of the articles.   Look around on the streets of any major city, and you will see a sampling of the outward variety of humanity: skin tones ranging from milk-white to dark brown; hair textures running the gamut from fine and stick-straight to thick and wiry. People often use physical characteristics such as these--along with area of geographic origin and shared culture--to group themselves and others into "races." But how valid is the concept of race from a biological standpoint? Do physical features reliably say anything informative about a person's genetic makeup beyond indicating that the individual has genes for blue eyes or curly hair? The problem is hard in part because the implicit definition of what makes a person a member of a particular race differs from region to region across the globe. Someone classified as "black" in the U.S., for instance, might be considered "white" in Brazil and "colored" (a category distinguished from both "black" and "white") in South Africa. As scientists have sequenced the human genome (the full set of nuclear DNA), they have also identified millions of polymorphisms. The distribution of these polymorphisms across populations reflects the history of those populations and the effects of natural selection. To distinguish among groups, the ideal genetic polymorphism would be one that is present in all the members of one group and absent in the members of all other groups. But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist What's so interesting about it? It is still psuedoscientific. It identifies race from a faulty viewpoint, defining race their own way, and showing how this is wrong. Strawman. They take racial classifications from countries to define race, quite a faulty comparison. The last two sentences are quite wrong. One specific polymorphism isn't needed for race. Many are. Many traits help classify races, and one isn't needed to be different for each race. Being "Mixed too much" doesn't mean race isn't a valid biological concept. And who gets to decide how recent is too recent? Really? The article is psuedoscientific, misleading, and flued by ideological reasons. The picture is a representation - they are trying to make each of the people look similar. The only real person is the blond one, the rest are different races based off of that - incorrectly changed by color only, and perhaps a few small traits. kidd rune Posted at 2:19 pm on July 17, 2009 I thought haplotypes do not connect to race. How can you say a haplotype is caucasoid or not??? If it came about in a Caucasoid population. You get it through your mother or father. They got it from their mother or father. It tells you who your paternal or maternal ancestor from 1000's of years ago was. jakelong Posted at 2:30 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Laurence at 11:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying. Judging from the length of the thread (7 pages) so far I would say the OP does seem to give much more than "two shits".   Haha good one man! Laurence Posted at 11:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Discuss - but I don't really give two shits about replying. Judging from the length of the thread (7 pages) so far I would say the OP does seem to give much more than "two shits".   In fact if the OP truly did not care he would not have bothered labelling a simple picture as "dishonest". How can a picture obviously designed for shock and publicity to attract readership be termed "pseudoscientific" or "dishonest". Such pictures in any cover of a popular magazine, even a scientific one, are never intended to be accurate or representative. Of much greater interest is the content of the articles.   Look around on the streets of any major city, and you will see a sampling of the outward variety of humanity: skin tones ranging from milk-white to dark brown; hair textures running the gamut from fine and stick-straight to thick and wiry. People often use physical characteristics such as these--along with area of geographic origin and shared culture--to group themselves and others into "races." But how valid is the concept of race from a biological standpoint? Do physical features reliably say anything informative about a person's genetic makeup beyond indicating that the individual has genes for blue eyes or curly hair? The problem is hard in part because the implicit definition of what makes a person a member of a particular race differs from region to region across the globe. Someone classified as "black" in the U.S., for instance, might be considered "white" in Brazil and "colored" (a category distinguished from both "black" and "white") in South Africa. As scientists have sequenced the human genome (the full set of nuclear DNA), they have also identified millions of polymorphisms. The distribution of these polymorphisms across populations reflects the history of those populations and the effects of natural selection. To distinguish among groups, the ideal genetic polymorphism would be one that is present in all the members of one group and absent in the members of all other groups. But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist jakelong Posted at 9:59 pm on July 9, 2009 Quote: from kidd rune at 9:49 pm on July 9, 2009 Lappish people have non-Caucasoid haplotypes. I thought haplotypes do not connect to race. How can you say a haplotype is caucasoid or not??? If so, indigenous to the very north of the region. They are indigenous to most of Norway and Sweden Most recent 15 of 105 previous replies displayed.