By Steve Sailer
10/08/2013
Here are a couple of professors of philosophy debating the existence of race.
Adam Hochman explains "how to be a social constructionist about race in the post-genomic era."
In his recent article Race: a social destruction of a biological concept, Sesardic argues that social constructionists have been ārefutingā a straw-man characterisation of racial naturalism, the view that āraceā is a legitimate biological category (Sesardic, 2010). Social constructionists have burdened the concept of race, he claims, with clearly unacceptable essentialist connotations; all with the aim of dismissing it outright. In light of the modern synthesis, with its rejection of species essentialism, we are committed to the rejection of racial essentialism. The task for race naturalists, then, is to develop a ābiologically informed but non-essentialist concept of raceā (Sesardic, 2010, p. 146).
But what are race naturalists made of, if not straw?
Neven Sesardic responds to Hochman in Confusions about race: A new installment.