…or why “race is a social construct, therefore…” is bunk part 456.
One race fallacy (#8 here) that I haven’t had a chance to formally debunk is what I now dub the heterogeneous fallacy. It goes something like this: “Races as defined in country X are really a heterogeneous bunch, therefore there can’t be average genetic difference between them” — or, sometimes: “There’s so much genetic diversity in this population, therefore…” As discussed in the previous post, Sternberg et al. wrote a paper largely premised on this fallacy. Anyways, in a recent race debate, I was struggling to point out this fallacy when someone left the following excellent reply to my interlocutor:
Suppose there are two groups of dogs. One on the south side of town and one on the north side. The south group consists of 90 great danes and 10 poodles. The north group consists of 90 poodles and 10 great danes. Here are the questions:
Is there a difference – on average – between South Side Dogs and North Side Dogs?
If yes, does this difference have a genetic basis?
Are South Side dogs and North Side dogs “coherent” “species”?
Is the answer to the second question dependent on the answer to the third question?
Because, quite frankly, ISTM that what you’re doing is rhetorical gamesmanship. So I’m curious as to whether you will or can answer the above questions in a straightforward manner.