Ask a physicist anything. (3)

[AV1611VET]

That was part of the original title of "On the Origin of species". The full title is

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Tell Wiccan that, I already know it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That was part of the original title of "On the Origin of species". The full title is

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Bit of a mouthfull, races in this context seems to refer to variety or type so there are whole load of races considering all the species exist.

In Darwin's time, racism was as commonplace as 'paedophile-phobia' is today. That Darwin was a racist is to be expected, but it certainly doesn't affect his theory, nor the modern development thereof.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

In Darwin's time, racism was as commonplace as 'paedophile-phobia' is today. That Darwin was a racist is to be expected, but it certainly doesn't affect his theory, nor the modern development thereof.

Yup but the title has little to do with any aspect of "racial supremecy" or racism. For example the first mention of races is...

Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yup but the title has little to do with any aspect of "racial supremecy" or racism. For example the first mention of races is...

True. But we've all seen how Creationists leap onto unqualified statements, especially Darwin's use of the word 'race' (which, as you said, despite the racist era, doesn't have racist overtones).

 

[AV1611VET]

True. But we've all seen how Creationists leap onto unqualified statements, especially Darwin's use of the word 'race' (which, as you said, despite the racist era, doesn't have racist overtones).

Did I misquote the title or something?

 

[Cabal]

Did I misquote the title or something?

No, you just resorted to a very tired-out and oft-refuted equivocation fallacy (or as I like to call them, ad homonym arguments).

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you just resorted to a very tired-out and oft-refuted equivocation fallacy (or as I like to call them, ad homonym arguments).

Innit amazing how I can do all that by just quoting the short title of a book?

 

[Chesterton]

I've read some other Darwin where he had very unkind things to say about human females. He was as harsh as a Muslim!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did I misquote the title or something?

Innit amazing how I can do all that by just quoting the short title of a book?

It's more that other Creationists have used the title of the book to accuse evolution of being inherently racist. It helps to nip trite tactics like that in the bud.

 

[Cabal]

Innit amazing how I can do all that by just quoting the short title of a book?

No, not really, because you're still using the wrong definition of races.

And don't play coy - you and other creationists have used this tactic plenty of times before.

Anyway, /derail

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, not really, because you're still using the wrong definition of races.

And don't play coy - you and other creationists have used this tactic plenty of times before.

Anyway, /derail

Ah, we derailed in the first thread.

New question: what's a 'race'?

 

[Cabal]

Ah, we derailed in the first thread.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't periodically re-rail to PHYSIIIIICS

New question: what's a 'race'?

As Darwin is using it, it means species.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That doesn't mean we shouldn't periodically re-rail to PHYSIIIIICS

For some reason, a Gauss rifle springs to mind...

 

[Cabal]

For some reason, a Gauss rifle springs to mind...

Re-railgun to physics

i like the way you think

(Now I can't stop thinking of the gauss gun from Half-Life that says the word PHYSIIIIIIICS as it revs up)

 

[Maxwell511]

New question: what's a 'race'?

This thread is called "Ask a physicist anything" not "A physicist asks questions". Stop derailing the thread.

Can I ask about the holographic principle again? As a theoretical physicist what is your opinion? It is something I know very little about so I would really like your opinion.

On the race thing I think it is just a product of humans practice of nominalism. Or the term is made up nonsense which does not have any physical reality such as nationality etc.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread is called "Ask a physicist anything" not "A physicist asks questions". Stop derailing the thread.

Exactly I'm a physicist, and you can ask me aaaaaanything!

Can I ask about the holographic principle again? As a theoretical physicist what is your opinion? It is something I know very little about so I would really like your opinion.

The holographic principle, as I understand it, states that part of the boundary of something contains all information of the whole thing (e.g., the event horizon of a black hole). But to be honest I don't know that much about it either; there are far too many esoteric conjectures out there that I'm not overly convinced that this one will come to anything.

After almost 3000 posts, you've finally got me stumped. Have a celebratory cake

On the race thing I think it is just a product of humans practice of nominalism. Or the term is made up nonsense which does not have any physical reality such as nationality etc.

Well, race may be hard to define, but there's no denying that it has some basis. After all, we can tell whether someone is black, white, Asian, Caucasian, etc, to a degree. Racial segregation wouldn't be possible if there weren't real characteristics by which people could be segregated. I'm not saying it's right, or that it's even relevant in the modern world, just that we can't deny the existence of something for fear of the Political Correctness police.

 

[Michael]

New question: what's a 'race'?

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.....

 

[Chesterton]

New question: what's a 'race'?

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.....

Want to hear something funny? I was going to post a race like a goat race or a hamster race. So I go to YouTube and type in "animal race". The first result that came up was the Lady Gaga and Beyonce "Telephone" music video.

 

[Michael]

Want to hear something funny? I was going to post a race like a goat race or a hamster race. So I go to YouTube and type in "animal race". The first result that came up was the Lady Gaga and Beyonce "Telephone" music video.

That is funny.

 

[Nooj]

Well, race may be hard to define, but there's no denying that it has some basis. After all, we can tell whether someone is black, white, Asian, Caucasian, etc, to a degree. Racial segregation wouldn't be possible if there weren't real characteristics by which people could be segregated. I'm not saying it's right, or that it's even relevant in the modern world, just that we can't deny the existence of something for fear of the Political Correctness police.

To say that blacks and Asians are racial groups, don't we have to define race first of all? 'We know it when we see it' doesn't really cut it in science I imagine.