Hi everyone,

Apologies for the slow response. Like Russell, I too have been down for the count with the flu!

Firstly, I found Mcpherson's claim that the meaning of the word 'race' is too ambiguous to be salvaged, interesting. A quick look in the Oxford dictionary gives a clear definition:

“Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.”

And this definition is in keeping with biology texts:

“A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.”

Mcpherson mentions that different groups such as anthropologists, sociologists, and lay-people, have preferred meanings, but given that there seems to be a clear definition to the word, why should 'preferred meanings' that stray from the actual definition, mean we should abandon the concept? …show more content…
Wade asserts that it was done with good intentions, specifically, as a response to anti-semitism. Montagu even claimed “That the very word race is itself racist”. Wade argues that as a result, many scholars began to avoid the term and topic for fear of being deemed a racist. I think we can still see this now, with many researchers noting that conducting research on possible racial differences, will likely be detrimental to their careers. Not to mention we see de-platforming of people such as Charles Murray.

Mcpherson stated that “I am here mainly concerned with the criteria by which science would rebut the view that race does not exist”. However, given that the assertion of race seems to have come before a more recent denial (Mcpherson here is careful to say that 'race' is not necessarily false) of race, isn't the burden of proof on the race deniers to show why races do not