Philosophy of Science and Race (Paperback)

by Naomi Zack (Author) "The kinds of oppression and discrimination that are now associated with racism have a longer history than the idea of race..." (more)
Key Phrases: sense racial taxonomy, general race factors, biological racial taxonomy, Kennewick Man, United States, African Americans (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review
"An important contribution to current debates on subjects related to race." -- Tommy Lott, Philosophy, San Jose State University

An important contribution to current debates on subjects related to race.
–Tommy Lott, Philosophy, San Jose State University

Product Description
In this concisely argued, short new book, well-known philosopher Naomi Zack explores the scientific and philosophical problems in applying a biological conception of race to human beings. Through the systematic analysis of up-to-date data and conclusions in population genetics, transmission genetics, and biological anthropology, Zack provides a comprehensive conceptual account of how "race" in the ordinary sense has no basis in science. Her book combats our everyday understanding of race as a scientifically supported taxonomy of human beings, and in conclusion challenges us to be clear about what we mean by "race" and what it would require to remedy racism.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 152 pages
• Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (September 20, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0415941644
• ISBN-13: 978-0415941648
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.6 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,314,982 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Good Account, December 24, 2004

By	A Reader (Philadelphia, PA United States) - See all my reviews

This is a useful and interesting book for anyone interested in philosophical questions about Race, or the philosophy of social science. Zack gives a clear and provocative presentation of the argument that our folk categories of race are scientifically and philosophically unsound. Her argument depends on a more reductive account of the sciences than I hold, but her arguments are clear and need to be considered by anyone working in the area. I highly recommend the book.

4 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Stupid White Men , October 16, 2004

By	H. Montgomery "lordcalvin" (edinburgh Scotland) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

A book which purports to prove that there is "no such thing as race", might do well to begin with a good pragmatic definition of race. As Zack has failed to do so let me provide one for her. Race consists of acquired heritable differencs in human groups which evolve in geographical isolation.

Most of the obvious racial differences are environmental adaptions to climactic conditions. There is no scientific reason to assume, however, that these differences can only be superficial.

Whilst it is accepted that the climate of the Eurasian biome (relatively low sunlight) gave a selective advantage to fair skin, it is not accepted that the geographical demands of Eurasia placed a premium on certain non-physical qualities. Why?

It seems obvious that the long winters and difficult terrain of Eurasia required a human population which had an enhanced ability for organisation, co-operation and forward planning. Thus it does not seem outrageous to assume that these qualities have been selectevely "bred" into the peoples of Eurasia over the 40,000 year period of their separation from the mother continent. This would mean of course that race was indeed more than a case of skin colour. This hypothesis seems to be an anathema to the scientific and academic establishment for reasons which are perhaps more ideological than logical.

This is a stuffy and fearful book which hides behind pretentious jargon such as, "invalid taxonomic construct".Despite their scientific veneer, Zack's arguments failed to convince me. Reduced to plain english these arguments would convince no-one.

If race is really such an invalid concept, why do we require near constant reminding of its unreality? The concept of race clearly explains something meaningful to human beings, if not to over indulged academics.