look, i suspected you might do this. i know about parts of academia that say “race is just an old social construct”, but that’s politically motivated by that segment of scientists.
this is like a ghost from the past with those tl;Dr, because i’ve discussed race with people in the past who also did tl;dr only when discussing race as if that were the topic of discussion *where they must make it look like they won some debate* so they mustered the longest text they as it were could. race or not, i’m not into that kind of competition or “debate”, as there is no need to usually since the fact is race isn’t just a sociological category and sure, i’ll bring on sources.
you are right that “race” is a conceptually heterogenous concept in one sense, but it’s also a scientific concept in another sense. you say “ethnicity is a sociological term” but the fact is, ethnicity is used in medicine to inform practical decision. it’s not only sociological but biological, including genetic.
race is not a topic either excluded from commonsense and philosophy. everybody knows what it means except those invested in trying to discredit it from your kid on the street to a world-famous guy like Stephen Jay Gould. to repeat: race is the concept of ancestry plus any biological consideration, but including some specifics beyond the mere “ethnicity” or “nationality” category. in fact there are subraces, which are scientific categories, although which become massively unpopular because of Hitler’s &c’s association with such knowledge. once you look into a persons physicality you are bound to somehow see or wonder where they might be descended from geo-historically. it’s not discredited and it’s not a pseudoscience. it’s a relatively well grounded science, in its anthropological part, and its archeology and forensic autopsy part, a skilled person can tell from the mere bones of the one it is working with the latters ancestry. so a racial anthropologist (yes, those were scientists officially before WW2) was able to see from bone morphology ‘this person is related to people who were historically indigenous to this valley in Sweden.’
anyway that Blacks e.g. have a predisposition to certain diseases vs. White ethnicities is a rather common knowledge by now and easily discoverable in reputable sources through google.
that shows it is not just a sociological category. as for being a scientific construct,— all scientific constructs are!
let’s first start with what a simple scientific construct is, and it’s not something that is “absolutely proven or disproven” like the populous often thinks, but it’s by historical happenstance almost if a concept or a word gets re-adapted or politically declared discredited.
firstly, when one is dealing with something unpopular regarding science, one usually has to deal with *scientism* which is not science but the pretense of being science. it’s prejudices in the culture of science, which make even people like Dawkins and Harris make a fools of themselves. but many others too.
a variation of this, and this is usually seen around race, is “race is just a construct”. usually this quite leaves out that every concept in science is a construct. and not only just a construct, it is usually a social construct with varieties of scientific confirmation. often in the history of science constructs have for centuries been used without that much confirmation, until someone recently came and confirmed it and then the name was kept but the concept re-adjusted. i.e. “we now know that this [biological construct] doesn’t do this, but does this.” i’ll be able to find documented cases of this, but most people know about this.