As someone who entered the debate on biology and race, and tried to keep my
comments civil, I'd like to raise one question/comment--
Warren Wagar wrote:" Yet we cannot reach this pinnacle without
acknowledging that all sorts of biological and sociocultural differences do
exist and may continue to exist among human beings, perhaps to the end of
time."
That is never an issue of contention. Of course darker skin toned people
are biologically different from lighter skin toned people---they have
darker skin tone! And, of course we are biological beings. The problem is
when one attempts to extrapolate some obviously true statements into
conclusions for which there is no evidence. The real question is whether
these biological differences have any measurable effect on human behavior
(acknowledging, of course, that when the environment/society treats people
differently because of their biology, THEN, those people might respond in
various ways to that treatment--but that is not biologically CAUSED by
their biology, but rather by the treatment they received.)
It reminds me of the astrology argument. The moon exerts tremendous gravity
on the Earth--pulls up millions of gallons of water with the tides. So the
astrologers asserts with no serious data, that Pluto lining up with
Uranus will affect a person's mood.
In the absence of any data that defines "race" in a biologically scientific
way, then, to use "race" as if it were a scientifically quantified
biological concept when it is really just based on a few select,
observable physical and social characteristics is unscientific. And in a
climate where the dominant ideology will use the rhetoric of "differences"
mainly to subordinate darker skin toned people, (because very few of the
people who strongly assert that there are significant biological
differences between the races will say that, for example, blacks and
Latinos are probably "more intelligent" than whites)---that in that
cultural context, agnosticism in the absence of evidence is generally taken
by the public at large to be "partial support" for the white racial
superiority position, despite the agnostics' protests that they are really
not taking any position at all. I have had this debate with many
psychologists and sociologists and lay people who wanted to take the
agnostic position on "biological race and behavior"; they challenge me to
be open minded about ALL the possibilities. So I ask them, then, if they
are truly agnostic, are they saying that black people may just as likely be
"biologically superior in intelligence to white people"? Quite a number
look at me as if I'm crazy and say, "Well, no." So their open-mindedness
only extends as far as asking their opponents to agree with them.
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT SAYING THAT ANYONE ON THIS LIST HAS MADE THOSE TYPES
OF CLAIMS. Only that inaction is also an action, and agnosticism can
sometimes be lending its weight to one or another side of an argument
despite the words, or intentions of its advocates.
Would you be agnostic if someone accuses, with only folklore evidence, a
friend of yours, someone you trust, of a heinous crime? And if they were
planning to mistreat your friend based on those allegations, would you say:
"Well, I don't think you should mistreat this person. But as to whether
he/she committed the act--well, an open minded person can never rule
anything out..."
What is the biological evidence that there are measurable differences in
behavior that can be attributed, biologically, to those things called
"race?"
Alan Spector
P.S.--This isn't just about biology and race; it's about ways that we
strive to investigate all kinds of social questions.