<DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> Apparently we have a disconnect, Miles. i don't think science is a very useful rhetorical tool, at least if science is narrowly conceived as biology results. Most people haven't a clue about what biologiy results mean, given the dismal state of science education, appeal to science is for rhetorical purposes just appeal to Authority! What science is necessary for is not rhetoric, but knowledge. There is no other way of attaining reliable empirical knowledge. None. Zip. Zero. If people "learn" something by "tradition" for which there is no controlled empirical support, no possiibility of indeoendent test, or other marks of science, they don't know it. They just believe it. If this sounds Western Imperialist, ethnocentric. and contemptuous of alternative ways of knowing, you betcha booty. Galileo et al stumbled on the right way to find things out. Of course, as you say, you make believe beliebe whatever you want by noncognitive means -- brainwashing, propaganda, drugs, "tradition," social pressure, etc. But it's elementary that thinking don't make it so. jks   Moreover, it is not even really possible to formulate the question "is there a nonscientific answer toa biological question"? --because to frame the question that way is to frame the question as a scientific question. If someone answer: I know there are races because God divided the human race into the sons Ham, Shem, and Japeth, and I read it in the Bible, he's not explaining race as a biological but as a theological matter. I think it's important to contextualize this. In a society that values science as we do, the only acceptable answer is a scientific one, I agree. But do you really believe that people can only have what they consider biological knowledge if they do science? A great deal of cross-cultural and historical data challenges this. Biological knowledge is common in many societies without scientific activity. If people were taught by tradition and cultural practices that skin color does not reflect important categories, that would be valid knowledge in their society, as assessed by the truth standards in that society. I stress this point because doing science is neither sufficient nor necessary to eliminate race in human societies, despite CB's claims. I agree that science is a useful rhetorical tool in our society, but it's hardly necessary. Let me control the mass media and parenting practices for a few generations, and race would be gone, even if all the biological research on the myth of race was lost. Miles ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.