What I was pointing out was that it doesn't follow from what UKsteve said (which was that scores improve up to a point but then stablise, and that people with high IQs do well on IQ tests) that the tests measure anything other than IQ. It doesn't, which is why you have to put forward other evidence to support your view that they are a useful measure of other aptitudes. I am not closed to the idea that they may be, but it is absolutely in the spirit of the scientific method you describe to call out dodgy reasoning.Rognvald wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:23 am"OK, but that doesn't disprove what simonm said. IQ tests measure IQ, and IQ is whatever is measured by IQ tests. This is true by definition - it doesn't mean that IQ tests are a valid measure of general intelligence, or even that there is such a thing as general intelligence." Rasputin
This is patently false IQ tests were the first breakthrough in WWI to quickly classify incoming US recruits for leadership and general army positions. It was developed by French psychologist Alfred Binet and the specific test was created by Robert Yerkes for US "Army Alpha" and served to quickly and fairly determine competence potentials in selecting men for the ranks...
well... I never took IQ test (why should I?)... and most of my life I just playing (composing, teaching) classical (or other) guitar... it is my only occupation...Rasputin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:52 amNo!I'm amazed when I look at member profiles, when I see the professions that are given. I'm sure that all the members must have relatively high scores, but what I wonder is does it take a higher degree of intelligence to play a musical instrument, such as CG, to begin with?
The number of times you take an IQ test might well correlate negatively with level of intelligence of course. How best to test that hypothesis?
There have been some scientific experiments which can cast light on why we experience our actions as chosen. I think the concept of free will is incoherent and I don't need an explanation of why it seems otherwise to be convinced of this - but still find the experiments quite interesting, and they would be useful if I was into trying to convert others to my way of thinking.
Jeffrey Armbruster wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:41 amRognvald, the mapping of the human genome completely debunked the idea of genetic determinism. Before this occurred, there appeared a number of books written by scientists who with immutable logic showed that parenting had nothing to do with how a child would turn out. According to them, nurture was a gypsy myth, and genes all determining. You could be as cold and unloving as you like to your child, even brutal, it would have no effect. I suppose only scientists, who think parental love is mere emotional mumble jumble, could believe this. And yet these notions briefly became respectable--such is the power of Science, as you insist on capitalizing it. Then, it all had to be taken back. Immutable science was just....mutable after all.
Murray's Bell Curve is insulting and has been debunked too.
By the way Nietszche would completely reject the modern thrall to science. Not science itself, but the way people aspire to live 'scientifically rational lives'.
There has been no scientific research establishing the existence of experience or that examines how or why we experience our actions. For all the empirical sciences will ever know we are philosophical zombies. Indeed, for the most part this is what the natural sciences currently assume.Rasputin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:43 pmThere have been some scientific experiments which can cast light on why we experience our actions as chosen. I think the concept of free will is incoherent and I don't need an explanation of why it seems otherwise to be convinced of this - but still find the experiments quite interesting, and they would be useful if I was into trying to convert others to my way of thinking.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], DonaldSauter, lagartija, Smudger5150 and 10 guests