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 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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
You are pulling a "it depends on what the definition of is is". For example, what do you mean by 'intelligence'. Not to mention that someones personal opinion on another's intelligence is largely subjective.
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
I feel like this discussion merits its own thread.
On October 30 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote: They need to take someone off the main debate stage to make room for Graham. Is he the only candidate willing to say even that on the R side?
That might be the first non-insane thing I've heard Lindsay Graham say. It's a completely different side of him than was shown in the 2nd JV debate. If I recall correctly, he (and the other candidates) were sounding very hawkish in that one.
On October 30 2015 11:40 jcarlsoniv wrote: I feel like this discussion merits its own thread.
We are debating an issue of deep, fundamental importance to the political landscape today in America.
How much is there to say about the election? If you are not voting for Bernie Sanders, you are very foolish. Let's get down to the real issues, like the science wars! That's what matters.
On October 30 2015 11:40 jcarlsoniv wrote: I feel like this discussion merits its own thread.
We are debating an issue of deep, fundamental importance to the political landscape today in America.
How much is there to say about the election? If you are not voting for Bernie Sanders, you are very foolish. Let's get down the real issues, like the science wars!
Mostly you're derailing the thread and backing filling relevance.
On October 30 2015 11:41 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:40 jcarlsoniv wrote: I feel like this discussion merits its own thread.
We are debating an issue of deep, fundamental importance to the political landscape today in America.
How much is there to say about the election? If you are not voting for Bernie Sanders, you are very foolish. Let's get down the real issues, like the science wars!
Mostly you're derailing the thread and backing filling relevance.
Why do you think that political discourse runs on rails?
I will point out that this thread is called "US Politics Megathread," not "US Election 2016."
If other people want to talk about something else, do it.
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
You try to figure out how much Chesterton they can quote, because he was the smartest man to ever live! (somewhat serious about the last part)
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
Like I said, you seem to think that because you nor I can explain how gravity works means that there isn't someone who can. I happen to be of the opinion that a gravitational physicist could probably explain it. But I can understand how someone who is playing the "what can ever truly be known" spiel would overlook that.
This is tiring and pointless, I'm out until something interesting comes up~
On October 30 2015 11:40 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:15 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:12 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
Like I said, you seem to think that because you nor I can explain how gravity works means that there isn't someone who can. I happen to be of the opinion that a gravitational physicist could probably explain it. But I can understand how someone who is playing the "what can ever truly be known" spiel would overlook that.
This is tiring and pointless, I'm out until something interesting comes up~
If the gravitational physicist understood gravity, why would they spend their lives being a gravitational physicist?
On October 30 2015 11:40 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:15 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:12 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote: [quote] 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 10:32 Kickstart wrote: [quote]
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
Like I said, you seem to think that because you nor I can explain how gravity works means that there isn't someone who can. I happen to be of the opinion that a gravitational physicist could probably explain it. But I can understand how someone who is playing the "what can ever truly be known" spiel would overlook that.
This is tiring and pointless, I'm out until something interesting comes up~
If the gravitational physicist understood gravity, why would they spend their lives being a gravitational physicist?
Why would anyone be a mathematician when we know the answer to 1+1?
On October 30 2015 12:10 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 12:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:40 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:15 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:12 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote: [quote]
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??
[quote]
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
Like I said, you seem to think that because you nor I can explain how gravity works means that there isn't someone who can. I happen to be of the opinion that a gravitational physicist could probably explain it. But I can understand how someone who is playing the "what can ever truly be known" spiel would overlook that.
This is tiring and pointless, I'm out until something interesting comes up~
If the gravitational physicist understood gravity, why would they spend their lives being a gravitational physicist?
Why would anyone be a mathematician when we know the answer to 1+1?
That is what you just asked.
And you are under the impression that mathematicians spend their careers studying the fact that 1+1=2? (set theoretical questions aside)
(It's not analogous, by the way. The analogy to what you said would be, "why would anyone be a gravitational physicist when they know that things fall down?".... on second thought not a bad question )
On October 30 2015 12:10 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 12:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:40 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:15 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote: [quote] 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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:12 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote: [quote] Do you in fact know what you are talking about when you say someone is "smart"? Can you define it?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote: [quote]
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
Like I said, you seem to think that because you nor I can explain how gravity works means that there isn't someone who can. I happen to be of the opinion that a gravitational physicist could probably explain it. But I can understand how someone who is playing the "what can ever truly be known" spiel would overlook that.
This is tiring and pointless, I'm out until something interesting comes up~
If the gravitational physicist understood gravity, why would they spend their lives being a gravitational physicist?
Why would anyone be a mathematician when we know the answer to 1+1?
That is what you just asked.
And you are under the impression that mathematicians spend their careers studying the fact that 1+1=2? (set theoretical questions aside)
(It's not analogous, by the way. The analogy to what you said would be, "why would anyone be a gravitational physicist when they know that things fall down?".... on second thought not a bad question;) )
I am under the impression that because there is more to know on a topic doesn't mean nothing is yet known. If a gravitational physicist does work in that field it doesn't mean nothing is known about gravity.
EDIT: This whole conversation is indicative of why people are annoyed with your line of thinking. See how fruitless this is? The only thing accomplished by this is you get to amuse yourself at other's expense by having them answer meaningless questions.
On October 30 2015 11:40 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:15 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:56 frazzle wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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.
I don't want to know whether someone is likely to be perceived as intelligent by someone else. I want to know if they are intelligent
when I say that someone is smart, I know what I am talking about!
Because you perceive them to be smart. The question you want answered here, based on what you wrote, is why do I say they are smart? In a spoken language context this mystery can be explained in part by uncovering your biases, which is the point of the sociolinguistic research. That is only one piece of the puzzle, and yes, it ignores entirely the question of whether someone is objectively "smart".
But that's the question I'm asking, so if you're ignoring it then you're ignoring my question.... ?
On October 30 2015 11:12 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:06 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 11:05 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:59 notesfromunderground wrote: Aquanim said a smart thing! Take notes kids
On October 30 2015 10:58 Aquanim wrote:
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?.
I can't define it, no. But I know it when I see it!
On October 30 2015 10:58 Kickstart wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:48 notesfromunderground wrote:
On October 30 2015 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
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 10:32 Kickstart wrote:
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..
nope, you are playing the game wrong
Nah, I just think that the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (aka science) is the best way of answering such questions. If others would rather play around with words that is fine, but I was answering the question, not dealing in frivolities.
but when pressed, you can't explain how this actually works or how you'd do it. Just vague reference to your faith that the answer is somewhere in a scholarly journal you can't be bothered to access. If that's the scientific attitude, I'm Roger Bacon
I said im not miffed either way. I am not a scientist..... I mean, I can't explain the complexities of how gravity works either, but I know it does and I could point you in the direction of someone who can. Its the same thing. Your point of view is akin to 'since I don't understand it or can't explain it then it isn't understood or explainable'. If that is the 'insert whatever word" attitude, I'm "Insert some name".
You think there is somebody in the world who understands how gravity works? Please bring them to the world's attention so we can give them their nobel prize!
Like I said, you seem to think that because you nor I can explain how gravity works means that there isn't someone who can. I happen to be of the opinion that a gravitational physicist could probably explain it. But I can understand how someone who is playing the "what can ever truly be known" spiel would overlook that.
This is tiring and pointless, I'm out until something interesting comes up~
I think this clearly isn't pointless, notes prompted you to reduce your claim of science into a trust game of shorthand referenced authority. The point is that much of the foundation of what people enter into public debates under the guise of "science" is built out of very non-scientific chains of trust judgments that stand in the place of what I guess you could call "substantial science." This is not to say that there is anything we can really do about how necessarily limited our means of communicating these ideas to one another is; I just think it's something worth acknowledging before one goes about making conscious judgments in relation to "iceberg" concepts like intelligence.
I personally find that this outlook does wonders for getting a better grasp on how those we think utterly stupid have come to believe the things that they do. The underlying framework through which basic ideas come into linguistic shape and form is really not all that different among those who disagree on fundamental things. Once one gets past the banal "how can they think that, they must be incredibly stupid" stage of engaging with opposing viewpoints, I think having productive discussions becomes that much easier. This is not to say that we should wallow in the boundless relativity inherent to our limited nature of communicating understanding; the above does not actually have anything to do with the very clear usefulness of methodological modalities like science or religion beyond explaining a bit about why there are oh so many "very smart" people who believe in some very stupid things.
notes just enjoys a healthily contentious dialectic, so don't mind his pedantry
Aha! Now you have changed the question. My claim was not that nothing is known about gravity. Much is known about gravity. Example: things fall down. I said that nobody understood gravity. That is entirely different.
Analogously, it is quite clear that something is known about intelligence. Example: it helps you solve problems. But having what scientists call an "operational definition" of intelligence is an entirely other thing. The question is whether or not it is possible to construct such an operational definition for this thing we mean by intelligence. It is far from immediately obvious that the answer to this question is yes. It may be, it may not. That is the topic at hand.
So far, all you have managed to say is that there must be because you assume there must be. This is tantamount to a declaration of faith that the epistemological traction of this thing you call 'science' is such that it covers all possible objects of inquiry. There is absolutely no philosophical ground for such a claim, as far as I can tell. You're welcome to give it a shot! But to this point you have failed to understand the question and so you cannot possibly hope to give an answer.
Yet people understand gravity (contemporary or past~). Newton had his law of universal gravitation, Einstein had his general theory of relativity. Again, you are making the meaning of 'understanding' something ambiguous. If you want it to mean 'to know everything that is possible to know about this subject" then no one will ever meet that standard, but no one means that when they say someone understands something.
EPT
