For example, quite recently, several respected geneticists declared that there was no such thing as race—an idea that not even the dimmest kid I knew back in Detroit would have fallen for.
That struck me as a stunning nonsequitur. The kid in Detroit has no possible way of knowing how much of what they see is genetic versus environmental—unless they go online and read the scientific literature. Offering that sort of surface observation as evidence is on the level of “any kid in Detroit can see the Earth is flat”.
That struck me as a stunning nonsequitur. The kid in Detroit has no possible way of knowing how much of what they see is genetic versus environmental—unless they go online and read the scientific literature. Offering that sort of surface observation as evidence is on the level of “any kid in Detroit can see the Earth is flat”.
Surely they could very easily observe that people with dark skin typically have parents with dark skin.
But the child has good evidence for the social concept, if not for the genetic one.
So he can disagree with “there is no such thing as race”.
Is this another one of those blegg/rube questions?