<< ustin, I'm not questioning _your_ argument. However, unlike you, Peter
Singer does _not_ and will _not_ argue that there is no scientific validity
in the concept of race in measuring genetically determined levels of mental
capacity.
***** It _may_ be the case that members of the underrepresented group
are, _on average_, less gifted for the kind of study one must do to become
a doctor. I am not saying that this is true, or even probable, but it
cannot be ruled out at this stage. (_Practical Ethics_ 46) *****
Singer argues that whether there are genetically determined differences in
intelligence between races and sexes is a matter of empirical studies.
Therefore, he perpetuates the myth that race is a scientifically valid
concept in studies of heredity and intelligence. >>
Well, I agree with Singer. And I think he agrees with me. You cannot seperate out the empirical from the conceptual element in the empirical studies as nicely you as you seem to suggest here. The logical positivists thought that you could, but they were wrong. Part of designing an good empirical study is framing the concepts to be used in in adequately. Sometimes that effort will fail. Sometimes there will be a conceptual failure for "empirical" reasons.
For example, here is one bit from my debate with Levin. I challenged him to expalin the applicability of the concept of the Black race that he used in framing his his claim that Blacks were genetically stupid. I noted that most if not all American Blacks are people of mixed race. (Virtually all the IQ stuff that is not from the wholly discredited because entirely fraudulent British twin studies are based on American data.) He said that Blacks were defined, for his purposes, as people 80% of whose ancestors six generations back came from sub-Saharan Africa. I asked him how many American Blacks fell into that category. He had no idea. So I said, there are probably no Black people in America, by your definition, and the data on IQ you use was not drawn, as afar as you know, from people who are Black by your definition. He wriggled, but that was the size of it.
However, it is logically possible that there might be a coherent notion of race, that there might be group-related statistical differences between races, that these differences might be heritable in an acceptable and biologically correct sense of the term. It is not likeky that this is true, but is is possible. That is what Singer is saying, and he is right. Singer then asks whether if all that were true, which he thinks that it is not, that these hypothetical differences have any moral significance. He thinks not. I think his approach is perfectly sound.
--jks