====================
Fair enough, but in contemporary societies science too is a fact of life. Would indespensible serve better than vitally necessary?
> Granted, in our society, science is an effective basis for
> legitimate authority and, to put it bluntly, propaganda. People in
> our society are impressed by "scientists have reported" arguments.
> In that sense, the biological and social science research is an
> effective rhetorical tool to undermine race. However, the
> science is not a necessary tool.
=================
See above. My point was directed at Carrol's implicit futilism, as if Steven Jay Gould's and others work on race, intelligence etc. had no impact on public perceptions and behaviors while the folks who attempt to impose and institutionalize the rubbish of the Bell Curve are given an aura of omnipotence that makes today's culture even more racist than the 1950's or 1880's etc.
> --And let's face it: many people in our society simply ignore
> scientific ideas and research that challenge their preexisting
> beliefs (cognitive dissonance theory again!). Science isn't
> going to get us very far in creating a society without race.
>
> Miles
==================
True but science -particularly biological and medical discourse- has gotten us further than we would be without it given the racism-modernity linkages which are, after all, very different from the forms of equally insidious discrimination took in ancient and feudal societies [problematics of periodization and epoch naming aside :-)].
Ian