If flat-Earthers argued like race-deniers

[ApostateAbe]

Are their allele frequencies effectively the same as that of Japanese of completely Japanese descent, in your opinion? Not that it's a matter of opinion.

Who knows, but since you've been defining race as a population with an allele frequency, Hispanic qualifies as a race according to your definition, i.e., all populations have an average allele frequency.

I am not sure what you mean nor how you think the argument follows. Populations most certainly do not have equivalent allele frequencies, and no population has the average except the whole human species as a conglomerate, with or without Hispanics.

 

[bigfield]

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

Articles that "positively cite the three-race scheme" are not, in and of themselves, evidence of the scheme's validity. Journal articles are considered reliable sources because they base their claims on evidence, either referenced from other sources or from original research. I followed the articles' citations relevant to the scheme but those references do not lead to evidence that the three-race scheme is accurate.

OK, that's fine, just different goalposts from the initial claim that the three race scheme is "outdated." Maybe i will track down such a statistical validation, but at another time if so.

My criticism was, specifically: "It makes no sense to defend the 19th-century classifications of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; that is a classification scheme used by outdated reference materials such as the Konversationslexikon, and as you have pointed out, it is not accurate science."

I've been consistent in saying that the scheme is not accurate science--the goal posts are still in the same place.

The 2004 IEEE proceeding titled, "Ethnicity Estimation with Facial Images" reports an algorithm of facial observation that classifies faces into the three-race scheme, with 94% accuracy. But, I don't have access to the full text.

I can only see the abstract and introduction, which do not say which race scheme was used and does not say how accuracy was measured. The abstract and introduction make no mention of a three-race scheme, and if the experimenters defined 100% accuracy as "always matched what the subject wrote down on the form" then it's meaningless.

Abstract:We have advanced an effort to develop vision based human understanding technologies for realizing human-friendly machine interfaces. Visual information, such as gender, age ethnicity, and facial expression play an important role in face-to-face communication. This paper addresses a novel approach for ethnicity classification with facial images. In this approach, the Gabor wavelets transformation and retina sampling are combined to extract key facial features, and support vector machines that are used for ethnicity classification. Our system, based on this approach, has achieved approximately 94% for ethnicity estimation under various lighting conditions.

1. Introduction
When we communicate directly with other people, visual information plays an important role. When we look at a person's face, we not only discern who it is, but also process other information about the person, such as emotion, gestures, ethnicity, age and gender, shape of the eyes and nose, and charm. Then, based on this information, we consciously or subconsciously adjust our interaction, such as speaking louder with elderly people, or switching language when speaking with foreigners. A face contains a great deal of information about that person; communication can flow more freely by using the sense of sight to understand this information. Like people communicating with each other, if machines were able to visually recognize and comprehend human faces, man-machine communication could flow more freely. If machines were to understand this visual information, it could be possible to create machines that could be operated safely, securely, simply and comfortably. Or, depending on a person's personal attributes, moods, preferences, or abilities, machines could adjust themselves to provide appropriate service interfaces, value added services, or information. To enable the adaptation of machines to the needs of humans, we aim to build technology for understanding people through visual information. We have already built face recognition technology and expanded face recognition technology through gender and age estimation technology. In this paper, we propose an automatic ethnicity estimation technology based on sampling gabor features from the eye and mouth regions and apply support vector machine to estimation. Also, we will present ethnicity-estimation algorithms in detail and discuss the experimental results.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1301530/

 

[ApostateAbe]

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

You seemed to be unhappy with my citations of recent articles that positively cited the three race scheme, and I still don't know why. I am not going to continue to spin my wheels for you.

Articles that "positively cite the three-race scheme" are not, in and of themselves, evidence of the scheme's validity. Journal articles are considered reliable sources because they base their claims on evidence, either referenced from other sources or from original research. I followed the articles' citations relevant to the scheme but those references do not lead to evidence that the three-race scheme is accurate.

OK, that's fine, just different goalposts from the initial claim that the three race scheme is "outdated." Maybe i will track down such a statistical validation, but at another time if so.

My criticism was, specifically: "It makes no sense to defend the 19th-century classifications of Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; that is a classification scheme used by outdated reference materials such as the Konversationslexikon, and as you have pointed out, it is not accurate science."

I've been consistent in saying that the scheme is not accurate science--the goal posts are still in the same place.

The 2004 IEEE proceeding titled, "Ethnicity Estimation with Facial Images" reports an algorithm of facial observation that classifies faces into the three-race scheme, with 94% accuracy. But, I don't have access to the full text.

I can only see the abstract and introduction, which do not say which race scheme was used and does not say how accuracy was measured. The abstract and introduction make no mention of a three-race scheme, and if the experimenters defined 100% accuracy as "always matched what the subject wrote down on the form" then it's meaningless.

Why meaningless? The three race scheme was what they used according to a subsequent study that cited it.

 

[bigfield]

Why meaningless?

It's not an accurate reference. The algorithm's results are not compared against a scientifically-determined fact about the subjects; it is simply agreeing with the subjects' self-identified ethnicity.

This is speculation, anyway: without reading the study I'm only guessing how they are actually measuring accuracy.

The three race scheme was what they used according to a subsequent study that cited it.

That is useless to me because it immediately brings me back to the cited source to verify what the subsequent study has said.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It's not an accurate reference. The algorithm's results are not compared against a scientifically-determined fact about the subjects; it is simply agreeing with the subjects' self-identified ethnicity.

This is speculation, anyway: without reading the study I'm only guessing how they are actually measuring accuracy.

The three race scheme was what they used according to a subsequent study that cited it.

That is useless to me because it immediately brings me back to the cited source to verify what the subsequent study has said.

Do you have in mind a specific kind of analysis that would qualify?

 

[bigfield]

It's not an accurate reference. The algorithm's results are not compared against a scientifically-determined fact about the subjects; it is simply agreeing with the subjects' self-identified ethnicity.

This is speculation, anyway: without reading the study I'm only guessing how they are actually measuring accuracy.


That is useless to me because it immediately brings me back to the cited source to verify what the subsequent study has said.

Do you have in mind a specific kind of analysis that would qualify?

DNA analysis comes to mind.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Do you have in mind a specific kind of analysis that would qualify?

DNA analysis comes to mind.

Be more specific. I think you have already seen the cluster analysis of Rosenberg et al. Specifically describe the dataset that would satisfy you.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

lol @ #FlatLivesMatter

 

[bigfield]

DNA analysis comes to mind.

Be more specific. I think you have already seen the cluster analysis of Rosenberg et al. Specifically describe the dataset that would satisfy you.

Genetic clustering appears to be a good approach, however Rosenberg et al's analysis does not serve as a sound basis for classifying humans into races. Rosenberg et al only samples from a select few populations and does not sample the population globally, continuously and randomly.

In order to see how, or even if, humans can be divided into races based on genomic analysis, a study would need to randomly sample the global population as a whole. This sample would then need to be arranged, if possible, into groups of individuals who are most closely-related genetically. If such an analysis yields discrete groups then it may make sense to refer to those groups as races.

 

[bigfield]

Any chance of getting back to this?

No, first you should be specific.

For each one of the flat-earther remarks in the OP, please provide (some of) the quotations from 'race-deniers' that inspired the quotes.

It was the subject of the OP, after all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Who knows, but since you've been defining race as a population with an allele frequency, Hispanic qualifies as a race according to your definition, i.e., all populations have an average allele frequency.

I am not sure what you mean nor how you think the argument follows. Populations most certainly do not have equivalent allele frequencies, and no population has the average except the whole human species as a conglomerate, with or without Hispanics.

What?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I am not sure what you mean nor how you think the argument follows. Populations most certainly do not have equivalent allele frequencies, and no population has the average except the whole human species as a conglomerate, with or without Hispanics.

What?

When you say, "...all populations have an average allele frequency," i am not sure what you mean. You mean i would expect that all Hispanic populations would have the same set of allele frequencies?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What?

When you say, "...all populations have an average allele frequency," i am not sure what you mean. You mean i would expect that all Hispanic populations would have the same set of allele frequencies?

No, I'm just presenting the idea you posted in another thread.

 

[ApostateAbe]

When you say, "...all populations have an average allele frequency," i am not sure what you mean. You mean i would expect that all Hispanic populations would have the same set of allele frequencies?

No, I'm just presenting the idea you posted in another thread.

OK, which idea was that?