A careful philosophical and conceptual defense can show that older biological definitions of 'race' (e.g., Dobzhansky's) remain coherent and resilient to many modern eliminative critiques. This reframes some social‑construct arguments as conflating extra baggage with the technical biological category.
— If accepted, this argument would shift scientific and policy conversations about genetics, medicine, and diversity from blanket eliminativism to more fine‑grained distinctions that could affect research, clinical practice, and public messaging.
2026.10.04
75% relevant
The article surveys conceptual and historical arguments about what 'race' means and how it has been used; that directly engages the same terrain as efforts to revive a biological concept of race by demonstrating the conceptual, evidentiary, and institutional problems with biologism and thus serves as a counterpoint to those rehabilitative claims.
David Josef Volodzko
2026.09.22
85% relevant
The article engages directly with Nathan Cofnas and the race‑realist / IQ debate, which is precisely the discourse captured by the existing idea about rehabilitating biological race; it links Cofnas’s scientific claims to cultural narratives (Huck Finn, Invisible Man) and thereby shows how scientific arguments are embedded in moral storytelling that affects public acceptance and institutional consequences.
Steve Sailer
2026.05.05
85% relevant
The article argues Reich’s book and recent high‑profile interviews are helping legitimize genetic explanations for population differences — directly matching the idea that biological race concepts are being rehabilitated in public debate (actor: David Reich; artifact: Who We Are and How We Got Here; event: Patel interview).
2010.01.12
100% relevant
Neven Sesardić’s 2010 Biology & Philosophy article explicitly critiques contemporary social‑constructivist eliminations of race and defends Dobzhansky‑style biological definitions.