In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 30 2015 08:03 Plansix wrote: Dawkins is the walking avatar of people who should just stick to their own discipline.
To be fair, most of what he does is centered around evolution, you know, his discipline.
Yeah, he mostly should stop using twitter and talking about religion. His work is fine. Its his "hot takes" currently social events that suck ass.
Discussing religion seems to segue with his conflict with creationism/ID teaching advocates. He, and others like Dennet and Sam Harris, do overstep sometimes and get their asses handed to them when they argue with actual religious scholars about deeper religious topics. I don't see this as a problem though as you appear to . I find the whole process edifying. The more the merrier.
Well my problem is that he is an asshole. It has nothing to do with his level of knowledge, its that he is a raging douchbag who thinks that beings super smart makes up for it. Fucking a great mind if you're also a huge asshole.
I first learned of Dawkins while reading Stephen J Gould. Dawkins took issue with Gould's theory of "Puctuated Equilibrium" and managed to be a hugely dismissive asshole in the doing of it, so we can can definitely agree on his capacity to engage in asshattery.
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?
And speaking of Gould, I actually am presently rereading his "Mismeasure of Man" wherein he dissects the studies of Binet and points out the bad assumptions and misreadings of Binet that intelligence testers used in the decades after. But then again, I suppose it would be a waste of time for you to read it given your radical skepticism, but I highly recommend it to others here who will all of course reveal themselves as the rigid dogmatists they are once they do so. Or something like that.
On October 30 2015 09:58 Kickstart wrote: I assume
why
It's probably already possible. I mean we can already tell someones risk of getting certain diseases and such. I'm not a geneticist and it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if it turns out it isn't possible, but it seems logical enough. But again, if an expert in the field (see what I did there?) said otherwise and the consensus among his or her peers was the same, then I would change my mind accordingly upon being presented with the relevant information.
On October 30 2015 08:47 kwizach wrote: It is pretty funny to see people like xDaunt enthusiastically support notesfromunderground's criticism of "Science" (while his criticism is in reality mostly a relatively uninteresting, unoriginal and deliberately provocative rant against "science as a religion" and "authority", without much actual substance to offer on the epistemological front), because it's painfully obvious that the reason xDaunt is in agreement is simply that the foundations of his reactionary positions are regularly proven to be factually wrong and that he doesn't like to be called out on that technicality. His position on climate change (he has notably argued in the past that we were now actually facing a global cooling of temperatures and that global warming was a myth) is a pretty good example of that. Unfortunately, hiding behind a pseudo-postmodern view of the scientific discourse won't help make true the factually false premises on which your positions often rest.
You continue to be a master of unwarranted (and grossly incorrect) presumption.
On October 30 2015 10:09 notesfromunderground wrote: Where would you look it up?
Scholarly articles on something akin to 'the role of genetics in determining intelligence' or something along those lines; and reading work done by people who have studied the subject. The same way you would look up anything else you were interested in..........
On October 30 2015 10:09 notesfromunderground wrote: Where would you look it up?
Scholarly articles on something akin to 'the role of genetics in determining intelligence' or something along those lines; and reading work done by people who have studied the subject. The same way you would look up anything else you were interested in?????
Who brought genetics into this? I'm just saying, suppose you were watching a presidential debate and trying to decide how smart the candidates were, what would be the best way to do it? I suppose trying to take surreptitious genetic samples is one methodology...
(BTW when I fail my quiz tomorrow I'm blaming yall. Foruming is like crack to me, it's really pathetic)
Now you are changing the question. I was discussing if it was possible to have some way to determine someones level of intelligence as that is what you asked:
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?
(ok, while y'all are pondering that one and wondering if you have the courage to step up to the plate and actually defend such a ludicrous belief, I have to go study greek. Pro tip: If you value your sanity, don't take greek. This has really been a delight. I wish my students were this enthusiastic).
I brought genetics into it as an example of something that might be able to be used to quantify 'intelligence', or at least to quantify factors that make up intelligence.
To determine someones intelligence from watching a debate is a different question. Everyone does it to a degree and its hard to give a sort of rubric that I go by, but generally it is determined by things like how knowledgeable they are on the subject, how articulate they are, if they are factually correct, etc.
EDIT: A quick google search brings this up as the first link even: news.sciencemag.org basically in line with what I was getting at, genetics seem to play some role in ones affinity to 'learn' based on several factors. But when talking about things like this that involve genetics it is always hard to say because there are usually a large number of genes in play, not just one single gene that can be singled out.
Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?
Considering that you haven't defined "a person's level of intelligence" and that it is a fairly vague concept, I suspect you're setting up to fail anyone who attempts to answer this question.
On October 30 2015 10:26 notesfromunderground wrote: Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
I've explained that...... I mean I like to debate on the forums as much as anyone but come on now. You asked "Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?" and I answered that it is probably already doable or will be doable through something like genetic analysis. Asking if it is scientifically possible to quantify someones intelligence is different from asking how do you gauge someones intelligence 'at a glance', which is what you are asking now.......
On October 30 2015 10:26 notesfromunderground wrote: Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
Technically, I said that studies showed that Cruz may be the smartest guy up there. I didn't say that Trump isn't smart. I tend to think that Trump is very smart. He thinks as well on his feet as anyone else up there, if not better.
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?
Considering that you haven't defined "a person's level of intelligence" and that it is a fairly vague concept, I suspect you're setting up to fail anyone who attempts to answer this question.
Well, yeah, that's the problem! It's not a well defined concept in the first place!! Nevertheless, when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about! How does science deal with problems like this??
On October 30 2015 10:26 notesfromunderground wrote: Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
I've explained that...... I mean I like to debate on the forums as much as anyone but come on now. You asked "Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?" and I answered that it is probably already doable or will be doable through something like genetic analysis. Asking if it is scientifically possible to quantify someones intelligence is different from asking how do you gauge someones intelligence 'at a glance', which is what you are asking now.......
Your answer amounts to, "yes, you can scientifically measure someone's intelligence by using science. I have Faith that the answer is Known by the Scientists" That is... not an answer.
On October 30 2015 10:26 notesfromunderground wrote: Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
Technically, I said that studies showed that Cruz may be the smartest guy up there. I didn't say that Trump isn't smart. I tend to think that Trump is very smart. He thinks as well on his feet as anyone else up there, if not better.
There are studies on Cruz's intelligence? Where were they published? And why were they done? And who on earth would pay for a study like that?
On October 30 2015 10:26 notesfromunderground wrote: Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
Technically, I said that studies showed that Cruz may be the smartest guy up there. I didn't say that Trump isn't smart. I tend to think that Trump is very smart. He thinks as well on his feet as anyone else up there, if not better.
There are studies on Cruz's intelligence? Where were they published? And why were they done? And who on earth would pay for a study like that?
Forget that, how would you even study it in the first place??
On October 30 2015 08:47 kwizach wrote: It is pretty funny to see people like xDaunt enthusiastically support notesfromunderground's criticism of "Science" (while his criticism is in reality mostly a relatively uninteresting, unoriginal and deliberately provocative rant against "science as a religion" and "authority", without much actual substance to offer on the epistemological front), because it's painfully obvious that the reason xDaunt is in agreement is simply that the foundations of his reactionary positions are regularly proven to be factually wrong and that he doesn't like to be called out on that technicality. His position on climate change (he has notably argued in the past that we were now actually facing a global cooling of temperatures and that global warming was a myth) is a pretty good example of that. Unfortunately, hiding behind a pseudo-postmodern view of the scientific discourse won't help make true the factually false premises on which your positions often rest.
You continue to be a master of unwarranted (and grossly incorrect) presumption.
How else do you explain your utter disregard for scientific evidence which contradicts your views, for example on the reality of climate change? What I said is also informed by the fact that you view your personal appraisal of the work of scientists as ""a form of peer-review", which is very telling.
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?
Considering that you haven't defined "a person's level of intelligence" and that it is a fairly vague concept, I suspect you're setting up to fail anyone who attempts to answer this question.
Well, yeah, that's the problem! It's not a well defined concept in the first place!! Nevertheless, when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about! How does science deal with problems like this??
There actually is a lot of socio-linguistic research documenting how a person's accent affects their perceived intelligence by various social groups. So you could start with that if you are attempting to explain why you perceive someone to be smart or not.
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?
Considering that you haven't defined "a person's level of intelligence" and that it is a fairly vague concept, I suspect you're setting up to fail anyone who attempts to answer this question.
Well, yeah, that's the problem! It's not a well defined concept in the first place!! Nevertheless, when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about! How does science deal with problems like this??
On October 30 2015 10:26 notesfromunderground wrote: Why did you bring in genetics though? that's what needs to be explained. I just was asking, say there was somebody and you wanted to say how smart they were. How would you do it? You're the one who jumped straight to genetic analysis (which is a very bold move). I have not changed the question, it's the same question all along. How smart is Donald Trump? I said he was smart. xDaunt posted "studies" showing he wasn't. I said I didn't believe in studies. That's how it started.
I've explained that...... I mean I like to debate on the forums as much as anyone but come on now. You asked "Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence?" and I answered that it is probably already doable or will be doable through something like genetic analysis. Asking if it is scientifically possible to quantify someones intelligence is different from asking how do you gauge someones intelligence 'at a glance', which is what you are asking now.......
Your answer amounts to, "yes, you can scientifically measure someone's intelligence by using science. I have Faith that the answer is Known by the Scientists" That is... not an answer.
Well if you want to play semantics, I could have just replied to the question with "I do." and that would have been 'an answer'. See, I can do this too. But I am not interested in playing out this line of questioning, it is akin to saying "you can't use reason to say something reasonable" or "you can't use logic to prove something is logical". Don't have time for such nonsense..
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote: Well, yeah, that's the problem! It's not a well defined concept in the first place!! Nevertheless, when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about! How does science deal with problems like this??
Do you in fact know what you are talking about when you say someone is "smart"? Can you define it?
In my view science is fundamentally about modelling the world. Typically these models are incomplete. In fact, typically they cannot possibly be complete. To take an example, if I throw a tennis ball at the wall and try to predict its behaviour, my model of reality will not be taking into account the position of each individual atom, and probably not even any sophisticated representation of its elasticity as an object. Nevertheless, if I simply think about the forces on the object treating it as a single body (which is in many ways wildly inaccurate) I can still predict the ball well enough to catch it. The model was an inaccurate representation of reality but it was accurate enough to be useful.
Measuring intelligence is even more difficult since it's much less clear what you are trying to measure. An IQ test is an inaccurate measurement of anything except the quantity of "what it is an IQ test measures". Nevertheless it has uses as an approximation for other things.
EPT
