Do you need "empiricism" to statistically analyze whether you wrote a post or not?
Yup: you observe yourself writing a post, therefore, you know you wrote the post. I observed your post, therefore, I know you wrote a response. I'm not sure how we could reason to those conclusions from first principles but empiricism makes it easy. Please try to understand concepts before you attack them, you only embarrass yourself.
First, the NAFTA superhighway does not need scare quotes. I know everyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist because it's not happening in their backyard but I guarantee you that it is quite real..... The NAU is not a conspiracy theory anymore than the European Union is....
The shelf was there in previous versions of Mac OS X, but turned into the sidebar.
* Make it OBVIOUS when there's an option/command click 'advanced' operation, instead of making us guess. And that goes for the rest of the software on the Mac.
How, exactly, do you propose doing this? Incidentally, most places where a right-click makes sense have a gearbox menu that allow you to select something and choose the option from the gearbox menu, so the presence of a gearbox menu already functions as making it obvious.
Indirectly, yes. Part of the SERE training our troops and (probably) CIA field agents go through involves torture resistance training, and one of the techniques they train for is waterboarding. It doesn't really make it better but at least they're familiar with what's going on, in theory. Anyway, the entire torture thing started when a few enterprising folks realized that torture resistance training also functioned as torture training.
The going rate is half of everything you own plus the possibility of child support. It's called a bad marriage to a self centered bimbo. Oh and the bimbo gets to reneg anytime she likes. You don't.
Yeah, marriage laws pretty much have either of two purposes these days: to oppress men, or to support the legal profession by increasing the demand for prenuptual agreements.
Um... perhaps that's because they're the ones doing it. I mean, that's what enemies do. I hope you don't consider China to be a U.S. ally, because they're not and never will be so long as their government is what it is.
Allies spy on each other all the time. That's how we know we're still allies.
They don't even qualify as neutral, given the effect they're having on our economy and their ongoing pillage of the U.S. economy and education system.
It's funny because it's true--you think they're going to send in field agents who will break down under questioning? Lie detectors are the least of what they get trained and tested for--where do you think they got the idea for waterboarding from?
Which would make child pornography...evidence of a crime. So evidently, watching child pornography when you're a member of a jury is your civic duty?
And let's set aside that strange black hole in the law where you can have sex with 16 year olds but not take pictures.
I'm not for child porn as I would probably find it rather revolting (interestingly, I've never seen it) but still, possession of evidence should only be a crime when you refuse to turn it over to a criminal investigation.
I think a better approach is do unto others as you think they would want done to them
By that approach, all of you owe me your eternal servitude. What I want done to me is my floor vacuumed and my laundry cleaned. Oh yes, and the dishes in the sink. Once that is done you may all buy me groceries.
Re:You need to clarify your question
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
See, what that view misses is that if you overestimate the number of employees you need, or if you end up needing fewer employees over time, or if some of your employees turn out to be poorly suited to any task within your company, then both the company loses and society loses--the company loses because it can't fire these people (and as a result, has to be more cautious about hiring, so the net effect on unemployment can be even worse) and society loses because not only does the company waste wealth, but it also loses out on the potential for that employee to generate wealth elsewhere in the economy where he's more qualified. Plus, if it's too hard to fire someone, they're going to treat their paycheck as an entitlement instead of as compensation for their hard work, which means they won't be as motivated.
Geneticists simply do not see the traditional "races" as being at all rigorous. I mean, the entirety of sub-Saharan Africa up until the 1960s and 1970s was considered one big race, when in fact, it is the most genetically diverse group of *populations* on the planet.
So instead of one big race we have a bunch of little races.
So rather than use an imprecise and pretty much useless word, they pull a word out of their jargon, population, which has a slightly different meaning and is applied to all sorts of organisms, and not just humans.
Right...and it's pretty much a coincidence that it's less politically charged? Look, if they want to use the word "population" instead because it's less ambiguous, that's not my complaint and it never has been. The doubletalk is the claim that race doesn't exist when in fact they're just studying race under another name.
I fail to see how calling a group a "population" makes them a race.
It doesn't, necessarily. For instance we could talk about the population of men in industrialized countries under the age of 50 who have had at least one heart attack. That population may have some genetic similarities but they're not a race per se. But if you want to talk about populations of genetically related people native to a particular geographic region or location--for instance, the Inuit--you're simply using the term "population" to refer to the same group of people we might have, in less euphemistic times, called a "race". If you're measuring the genetic distance between, for instance, Koreans and Japanese, you're cataloguing the genetic difference between two races, no matter how much you want to use the word "population".
Tell me, when did you get the hard on against molecular biology?
I'm all for molecular biology, and I think the study of genetics, even human genetics, is done rather well. But in order to do so, geneticists have to use doubletalk in order to obscure their findings just so they aren't accused of racism. Furthermore, no one is allowed to even question, much less investigate, whether there are phenotypic differences between these populations, aside from the superficial. The dogma is that there are no differences. But a dogma isn't a scientific conclusion. The purpose of science is not to avoid justifying racism, it's to describe the world as accurately as possible. And still, even if it did turn out that there were non-superficial differences between populations, that still wouldn't justify racism, since it's still a fallacy to apply population averages to individuals.
Sure, the old notion of "race" was rather vague, but the way we use "population" now fits well within how the term "race" was used. The Inuit may have once been considered a race--now they're a "population". If identifiable human populations exist who are genetically similar and native to some geographical region, it's only political correctness that prevents us from referring to those populations as races.
The US Constitution is very simple, but lawyers and politicians have twisted and interpreted it to empower themselves.
Have you ever considered that it's just your personal interpretation of the Constitution that's simple, and you're just too closed-minded to consider that others might interpret it differently than you?
There's also the problem that if Obama is elected, and the congress stays democrat controlled (which seems likely) you will have the exact same formula that you had in 2000--and look how well that turned out.
Time to be pedantic: in 2000, the Republicans held the House, Bush was elected President, and the Senate was split 50-50. The Democrats had control with Gore casting the tie-breaking vote until Bush and Cheney were sworn in, at which point Cheney held the tie-breaking vote. However, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and coalitioned with the Democrats, giving the Democrats 51-49 control of the Senate until the 2002 elections. The period of total Republican control lasted from January 2003 to January 2007, at which point the Democrats retook both houses of Congress.
Might I suggest you use paragraphs in the future? It would make your posts easier to read.
First off, dark skin is the adaptation, light skin is not considered an adaptation except possibly in extreme environments (snow covered) where pale skin would equal cover....its very easy to point to the advantages of dark skin in a sun-heavy environment, indeed, ALL humans are endowed with that adapatation (see tanning)... but the inverse does not stand so well
Actually, lighter skin helps the skin produce Vitamin D from the sun's ultraviolet light. Both dark and light skin are adaptations, though since human beings originated in Africa, we probably had dark skin before light skin ever evolved.
Secondarily, the assertion that kenyans consitute a race, or even that they are geneticly more pre-disposed towards winning marathons is ultimately flawed. in 2001 the Boston marathon (in recent years otherwise won by the kenyan group) was won by a Korean... Lee Bong-Ju... not exactly something you'd expect. The womens version has been won somewhat frequently (again with large kenyan presence) by russians. Likewise, the NYC marathon has in recent years been won by a brazilian, mexicans, and italians.
Which tells us almost nothing about those populations as a whole. That's just bad statistical reasoning. Anyway, there's an identifiable genetic population that lives in and around Kenya, calling that a "race" is just a question of terminology--that said, the use of "race" to refer to such populations is well attested.
The truth is that good training, national intrest (read funding), pride, and temporal grouping make such trends appear.
All of those may be important factors. So might genetics. We shouldn't let political dogma blind us to that possibility.
Imagine an UPBRINGING (NOT genetic predisposition) where you spent 90% of your life out-doors... not in school.. not working in an office, etc... imagine living a life where you didnt take the bus, bike, car, or train to school.... but rather walked... or ran those miles... imagine such a upbringing in a BIG OPEN land in addition to weather that is rarely bad (snow). Given those conditions on a large scale... what are the chances youd have a population that was more athletic?
You're telling me that if a population lives that way for centuries on end, they wouldn't become genetically predisposed to it?
Mind you, this doesnt preclude very real genetic differences betweens groups of people (sickle-cell animia vs malaria, green eyes, asiatic stature, native american alcohol tolerance, etc...), but you must be very carefulkl in WHAT difference your attempting to assert as evidence... becuase most that seem to be the "obvious" or "accepted" ones... tend to be the worst and most inaccurate ones.... the ones that end up labeling you as a racist, and worse still... lead to the kind of bad science that turns into genocide.
Bad science doesn't lead to genocide. Bad morality leads to genocide.
I was being fairly ironic, if you hadn't noticed. Although now that you point it out, I'll hasten to add that the United States was a frontier society centuries after Europe was settled. Frontier societies have no use for social welfare as a rule, and while Europe has totally forgotten what it was like to be a frontier society, America is only a couple centuries out, less in some places. (This is also why America still has a death penalty--frontier societies can't waste their time and wealth housing and feeding murderers for the rest of their natural lives.)
Those who support that anti-social philosophy are only able to do it due to having a very damaged view of society.
I don't see how eschewing all institutional violence is a "damaged view of society". Indeed, the main fault of libertarianism is that it's too moral, and insufficiently willing to consider when the ends justify the means.
Your moniker, "Leftist Troll", is well taken. Your analysis is not.
Slashdotters are predominantly male. Men are genetically predisposed to treat most interpersonal relationships on rational grounds, interacting for the purpose of mutual self-interest. Libertarianism fits this view better than it fits the female instinct to inject compassion and caretaking (i.e. mothering) into all interpersonal relationships, no matter how inappropriate it may be in that context.
Slashdotters are also interested in computers or technology, which from the gate level up operate based upon strict logic. Slashdotters are therefore more prone to understand and properly apply logic. Most "mainstream" political views are inherently inconsistent and self-contradictory to an obvious and irritating degree. Libertarianism follows simply from one or two moral axioms revolving around nonaggression, which better appeals to those who understand logical systems.
Slashdotters also predominantly come from childhoods where they were physically bullied, further impressing upon them the moral justice of nonaggression and the moral injustice of aggression. These principles are central to libertarianism--except, unlike pacificism, libertarianism allows for self-defense.
Now, my generalizations are probably as insulting as yours, but unlike yours, my generalizations actually show a decent understanding of what libertarianism really is, rather than what some leftist troll wants to portray it as.
There's a qualitative dimension to physics as well.
Basically, you are an idiot if you think that any one school of economics can be right or wrong in an entirely objective scientific way. Because, on paper, the USSR should've been an economic dynamo, the problem of course was that people didn't act in the way their number's predicted...
I think that's some strong empirical (i.e. scientific) evidence against Marxism, eh? Plus, as an economic theory, Marxism is non-empirical, like Austrianism. Qualititative/quantitative isn't the issue here, it's empiricism/rationalism. And even a social science is better served by empiricism.
Misleading title and summary
on
Has Ron Paul Quit?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:
But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
Re:Pro-science can be bad too
on
Science Debate 2008
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It is, in fact, evolutionary biology and genetics which has made a lie of every single racist claim made in the last two or three centuries. The "races" that the Europeans saw are not even logical ways of dividing human populations, they're just simply artifacts of a mariner cultures skipping thousands of miles of intermediate populations.
Talk about letting political dogma get in the way of science. You just replaced the word "race" with the term "population". Let's see what evolutionary biology and genetics have said: that populations evolve to adapt to the specific conditions they find themselves in, that different populations in different geographic areas have different genotypes and phenotypes giving them an advantage in their native area, and that there is a strong correlation between geography and genetics. Almost no serious scientist disputes that lighter skin is better adapted to the climates of northern Europe and that darker skin is better adapted to climates closer to the equator, and that the human populations (or, to put it less euphemistically, races) native to these regions have these traits.
Racism is a moral view: it is the opinion that some human beings, due to their racial origin, have less worth than others. The proper response to racism is individualism: human beings should be judged on their individual merits rather than on the aggregate merits of any group they may belong to. The problem is that certain leftists are so committed to collectivism that, rather than solving the problems of racism, sexism, etc. all in one stroke, they try to hector scientists into reaching certain conclusions, not because those conclusions are empirically valid, but because those conclusions support a certain political end.
To a collectivist, conceding that on average, Kenyans are better genetically suited to running marathons than Anglo-Saxons is already a concession to racism. That's because they're incapable of seeing people as individuals, but rather, as members of races, genders, sexual orientations, nationalities, and so forth. An individualist may very well note that, on average, Kenyans have a genetic advantage in running marathons. But just knowing a particular individual is Kenyan doesn't settle the issue: there are individual Kenyans who have lost marathons to Anglo-Saxons, and it's folly to judge a marathon runner based on race instead of their marathon times. The individualist, thus, is unbiased to whatever the scientific reality may be because they know population averages are simply population averages. It's the leftist who bends science to fit some social goal, and it's double-talking scientists who say "race doesn't exist" who concede honesty, clarity, and truth to some political end. It's a lot easier for scientists to ignore creationists--the ethnic studies department across the street is better at agitating and is the bigger threat to science.
Contrary to what the postmodernists claim, and what cowardly scientists like Jared Diamond have conceded, the purpose of science isn't to come to conclusions that are non-racist--it's to come to conclusions that are true, or likely to be true. Racism is a moral view to be battled on moral grounds: there is no need to pervert empirical science to that goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup: you observe yourself writing a post, therefore, you know you wrote the post. I observed your post, therefore, I know you wrote a response. I'm not sure how we could reason to those conclusions from first principles but empiricism makes it easy. Please try to understand concepts before you attack them, you only embarrass yourself.
[citation needed]
The shelf was there in previous versions of Mac OS X, but turned into the sidebar.
* Make it OBVIOUS when there's an option/command click 'advanced' operation, instead of making us guess. And that goes for the rest of the software on the Mac.How, exactly, do you propose doing this? Incidentally, most places where a right-click makes sense have a gearbox menu that allow you to select something and choose the option from the gearbox menu, so the presence of a gearbox menu already functions as making it obvious.
Indirectly, yes. Part of the SERE training our troops and (probably) CIA field agents go through involves torture resistance training, and one of the techniques they train for is waterboarding. It doesn't really make it better but at least they're familiar with what's going on, in theory. Anyway, the entire torture thing started when a few enterprising folks realized that torture resistance training also functioned as torture training.
Most of us on Slashdot have more interesting things to hook up to a 50" plasma screen than a TV cable. But point well taken.
Yeah, marriage laws pretty much have either of two purposes these days: to oppress men, or to support the legal profession by increasing the demand for prenuptual agreements.
Allies spy on each other all the time. That's how we know we're still allies.
They don't even qualify as neutral, given the effect they're having on our economy and their ongoing pillage of the U.S. economy and education system.They're stealing our education?
It's funny because it's true--you think they're going to send in field agents who will break down under questioning? Lie detectors are the least of what they get trained and tested for--where do you think they got the idea for waterboarding from?
One month, then we'll see.
I think I speak for nearly everyone here when I say I've given up sex for far longer than six months, and didn't even get a TV out of the deal.
Which would make child pornography...evidence of a crime. So evidently, watching child pornography when you're a member of a jury is your civic duty?
And let's set aside that strange black hole in the law where you can have sex with 16 year olds but not take pictures.
I'm not for child porn as I would probably find it rather revolting (interestingly, I've never seen it) but still, possession of evidence should only be a crime when you refuse to turn it over to a criminal investigation.
By that approach, all of you owe me your eternal servitude. What I want done to me is my floor vacuumed and my laundry cleaned. Oh yes, and the dishes in the sink. Once that is done you may all buy me groceries.
See, what that view misses is that if you overestimate the number of employees you need, or if you end up needing fewer employees over time, or if some of your employees turn out to be poorly suited to any task within your company, then both the company loses and society loses--the company loses because it can't fire these people (and as a result, has to be more cautious about hiring, so the net effect on unemployment can be even worse) and society loses because not only does the company waste wealth, but it also loses out on the potential for that employee to generate wealth elsewhere in the economy where he's more qualified. Plus, if it's too hard to fire someone, they're going to treat their paycheck as an entitlement instead of as compensation for their hard work, which means they won't be as motivated.
So instead of one big race we have a bunch of little races.
So rather than use an imprecise and pretty much useless word, they pull a word out of their jargon, population, which has a slightly different meaning and is applied to all sorts of organisms, and not just humans.Right...and it's pretty much a coincidence that it's less politically charged? Look, if they want to use the word "population" instead because it's less ambiguous, that's not my complaint and it never has been. The doubletalk is the claim that race doesn't exist when in fact they're just studying race under another name.
It doesn't, necessarily. For instance we could talk about the population of men in industrialized countries under the age of 50 who have had at least one heart attack. That population may have some genetic similarities but they're not a race per se. But if you want to talk about populations of genetically related people native to a particular geographic region or location--for instance, the Inuit--you're simply using the term "population" to refer to the same group of people we might have, in less euphemistic times, called a "race". If you're measuring the genetic distance between, for instance, Koreans and Japanese, you're cataloguing the genetic difference between two races, no matter how much you want to use the word "population".
Tell me, when did you get the hard on against molecular biology?I'm all for molecular biology, and I think the study of genetics, even human genetics, is done rather well. But in order to do so, geneticists have to use doubletalk in order to obscure their findings just so they aren't accused of racism. Furthermore, no one is allowed to even question, much less investigate, whether there are phenotypic differences between these populations, aside from the superficial. The dogma is that there are no differences. But a dogma isn't a scientific conclusion. The purpose of science is not to avoid justifying racism, it's to describe the world as accurately as possible. And still, even if it did turn out that there were non-superficial differences between populations, that still wouldn't justify racism, since it's still a fallacy to apply population averages to individuals.
Sure, the old notion of "race" was rather vague, but the way we use "population" now fits well within how the term "race" was used. The Inuit may have once been considered a race--now they're a "population". If identifiable human populations exist who are genetically similar and native to some geographical region, it's only political correctness that prevents us from referring to those populations as races.
Have you ever considered that it's just your personal interpretation of the Constitution that's simple, and you're just too closed-minded to consider that others might interpret it differently than you?
Time to be pedantic: in 2000, the Republicans held the House, Bush was elected President, and the Senate was split 50-50. The Democrats had control with Gore casting the tie-breaking vote until Bush and Cheney were sworn in, at which point Cheney held the tie-breaking vote. However, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont became an independent and coalitioned with the Democrats, giving the Democrats 51-49 control of the Senate until the 2002 elections. The period of total Republican control lasted from January 2003 to January 2007, at which point the Democrats retook both houses of Congress.
Might I suggest you use paragraphs in the future? It would make your posts easier to read.
First off, dark skin is the adaptation, light skin is not considered an adaptation except possibly in extreme environments (snow covered) where pale skin would equal cover....its very easy to point to the advantages of dark skin in a sun-heavy environment, indeed, ALL humans are endowed with that adapatation (see tanning)... but the inverse does not stand so wellActually, lighter skin helps the skin produce Vitamin D from the sun's ultraviolet light. Both dark and light skin are adaptations, though since human beings originated in Africa, we probably had dark skin before light skin ever evolved.
Secondarily, the assertion that kenyans consitute a race, or even that they are geneticly more pre-disposed towards winning marathons is ultimately flawed. in 2001 the Boston marathon (in recent years otherwise won by the kenyan group) was won by a Korean... Lee Bong-Ju... not exactly something you'd expect. The womens version has been won somewhat frequently (again with large kenyan presence) by russians. Likewise, the NYC marathon has in recent years been won by a brazilian, mexicans, and italians.Which tells us almost nothing about those populations as a whole. That's just bad statistical reasoning. Anyway, there's an identifiable genetic population that lives in and around Kenya, calling that a "race" is just a question of terminology--that said, the use of "race" to refer to such populations is well attested.
The truth is that good training, national intrest (read funding), pride, and temporal grouping make such trends appear.All of those may be important factors. So might genetics. We shouldn't let political dogma blind us to that possibility.
Imagine an UPBRINGING (NOT genetic predisposition) where you spent 90% of your life out-doors... not in school.. not working in an office, etc... imagine living a life where you didnt take the bus, bike, car, or train to school.... but rather walked... or ran those miles... imagine such a upbringing in a BIG OPEN land in addition to weather that is rarely bad (snow). Given those conditions on a large scale... what are the chances youd have a population that was more athletic?You're telling me that if a population lives that way for centuries on end, they wouldn't become genetically predisposed to it?
Mind you, this doesnt preclude very real genetic differences betweens groups of people (sickle-cell animia vs malaria, green eyes, asiatic stature, native american alcohol tolerance, etc...), but you must be very carefulkl in WHAT difference your attempting to assert as evidence... becuase most that seem to be the "obvious" or "accepted" ones... tend to be the worst and most inaccurate ones.... the ones that end up labeling you as a racist, and worse still... lead to the kind of bad science that turns into genocide.Bad science doesn't lead to genocide. Bad morality leads to genocide.
Last I checked, there aren't many militias on the Texas coast. They're primarily a phenomenon of the inland northwest.
I was being fairly ironic, if you hadn't noticed. Although now that you point it out, I'll hasten to add that the United States was a frontier society centuries after Europe was settled. Frontier societies have no use for social welfare as a rule, and while Europe has totally forgotten what it was like to be a frontier society, America is only a couple centuries out, less in some places. (This is also why America still has a death penalty--frontier societies can't waste their time and wealth housing and feeding murderers for the rest of their natural lives.)
Those who support that anti-social philosophy are only able to do it due to having a very damaged view of society.I don't see how eschewing all institutional violence is a "damaged view of society". Indeed, the main fault of libertarianism is that it's too moral, and insufficiently willing to consider when the ends justify the means.
Your moniker, "Leftist Troll", is well taken. Your analysis is not.
Slashdotters are predominantly male. Men are genetically predisposed to treat most interpersonal relationships on rational grounds, interacting for the purpose of mutual self-interest. Libertarianism fits this view better than it fits the female instinct to inject compassion and caretaking (i.e. mothering) into all interpersonal relationships, no matter how inappropriate it may be in that context.
Slashdotters are also interested in computers or technology, which from the gate level up operate based upon strict logic. Slashdotters are therefore more prone to understand and properly apply logic. Most "mainstream" political views are inherently inconsistent and self-contradictory to an obvious and irritating degree. Libertarianism follows simply from one or two moral axioms revolving around nonaggression, which better appeals to those who understand logical systems.
Slashdotters also predominantly come from childhoods where they were physically bullied, further impressing upon them the moral justice of nonaggression and the moral injustice of aggression. These principles are central to libertarianism--except, unlike pacificism, libertarianism allows for self-defense.
Now, my generalizations are probably as insulting as yours, but unlike yours, my generalizations actually show a decent understanding of what libertarianism really is, rather than what some leftist troll wants to portray it as.
There's a qualitative dimension to physics as well.
Basically, you are an idiot if you think that any one school of economics can be right or wrong in an entirely objective scientific way. Because, on paper, the USSR should've been an economic dynamo, the problem of course was that people didn't act in the way their number's predicted...I think that's some strong empirical (i.e. scientific) evidence against Marxism, eh? Plus, as an economic theory, Marxism is non-empirical, like Austrianism. Qualititative/quantitative isn't the issue here, it's empiricism/rationalism. And even a social science is better served by empiricism.
Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:
But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.Talk about letting political dogma get in the way of science. You just replaced the word "race" with the term "population". Let's see what evolutionary biology and genetics have said: that populations evolve to adapt to the specific conditions they find themselves in, that different populations in different geographic areas have different genotypes and phenotypes giving them an advantage in their native area, and that there is a strong correlation between geography and genetics. Almost no serious scientist disputes that lighter skin is better adapted to the climates of northern Europe and that darker skin is better adapted to climates closer to the equator, and that the human populations (or, to put it less euphemistically, races) native to these regions have these traits.
Racism is a moral view: it is the opinion that some human beings, due to their racial origin, have less worth than others. The proper response to racism is individualism: human beings should be judged on their individual merits rather than on the aggregate merits of any group they may belong to. The problem is that certain leftists are so committed to collectivism that, rather than solving the problems of racism, sexism, etc. all in one stroke, they try to hector scientists into reaching certain conclusions, not because those conclusions are empirically valid, but because those conclusions support a certain political end.
To a collectivist, conceding that on average, Kenyans are better genetically suited to running marathons than Anglo-Saxons is already a concession to racism. That's because they're incapable of seeing people as individuals, but rather, as members of races, genders, sexual orientations, nationalities, and so forth. An individualist may very well note that, on average, Kenyans have a genetic advantage in running marathons. But just knowing a particular individual is Kenyan doesn't settle the issue: there are individual Kenyans who have lost marathons to Anglo-Saxons, and it's folly to judge a marathon runner based on race instead of their marathon times. The individualist, thus, is unbiased to whatever the scientific reality may be because they know population averages are simply population averages. It's the leftist who bends science to fit some social goal, and it's double-talking scientists who say "race doesn't exist" who concede honesty, clarity, and truth to some political end. It's a lot easier for scientists to ignore creationists--the ethnic studies department across the street is better at agitating and is the bigger threat to science.
Contrary to what the postmodernists claim, and what cowardly scientists like Jared Diamond have conceded, the purpose of science isn't to come to conclusions that are non-racist--it's to come to conclusions that are true, or likely to be true. Racism is a moral view to be battled on moral grounds: there is no need to pervert empirical science to that goal.