IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Thu Oct 10 14:47:21 EST 2002

JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 
>>>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>>>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.
>>Because in fact there is none.  The laws attempt to do so based on
>>parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
>>generally used to check.  Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
>>determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
>>recursively.  There is no way to determine the race of someone even
>>legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been
>The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
>that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
>religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof".

There's a difference.  We cannot argue religion on the basis of
science because by definition religion deals with things that are
supernatural and not natural.

Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say.  But
if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
be able to detect it.  But of course it cannot.

>science is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
>reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
>your view.

Science is irrelevant to religion.  Whether religion is an important
issue depends on your point of view.

Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
other than the human race.  And race would not be an issue at all, if
racists like you did not make it an issue.  It certainly is not one of
the most important issues of today.

>I challenge your view.

Whoopie for you.

>With respect to laws being based on parentage, well, that's not
>true. One of the first Laws (if not the very first) addressing the
>race question was the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which uses
>both terms "race" and "color" with respect to voting rights. It was
>ratified Feb. 3, 1870.
>Here it is:
>Amendment 15, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States
>to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
>any State on account of race, color or previous condition of
>Section 2 shows that Congress is empowered to create laws with
>respect to this Amendment. 
>Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
>appropriate legislation.
>"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.

Actually it isn't.  If race was based on color, then they would not
have needed to use both words, only one of them.

>In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
>conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
>show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
>laws dealing with "race".

Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
determined.  And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.

>Here are some examples....
>[H.RES.398.EH] Whereas fragile X is the most common inherited cause
>of mental retardation, affecting people of every race, income level,
>and nationality; </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:18:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>[H.CON.RES.388.ENR] Whereas in 2000, the Surgeon General of the
>Public Health Service announced as a goal the elimination by 2010 of
>health disparities experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in
>health... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:27:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>[S.RES.151.IS] Expressing the sense of the Senate that the World
>Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
>Related Intolerance presents a unique opportunity to address
>global... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:37:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>
>>>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
>>>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
>>>whims of wizards.
>>None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
>>less how the law works in America.  Science is not "politically
>>correct", and it is international.
>My findings above prove you wrong Bob.

No.  They prove nothing except that you can find the word "race" in
various laws.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net