Quote:
Originally Posted by Eta C
This whole discussion is rendererd meaningless by the underlying assumption that there is something called "intelligence" that can be quantified by some measure (brain size, brain weight, IQ test score, etc.). This is what Steven J Gould referred to as the fallacy of reification in his classic book The Mismeasure of Man. I'd recommend that anyone jumping into a discussion like this read it if they haven't already.
Yes, some people are more "intelligent" than others, but making efforts to shoehorn this very complex phenomenom into a single number and assume that that number means anything is futile. It is, as Lord Kelvin would say, "Knowledge of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."
|
Well, it does mean something; just maybe not what some people want it to mean. Maybe this was your way of saying you don't agree or don't like what some or most people think it to mean.
Your first sentence confuses me. It appears you are stating that the assumption that intelligence can be quantified renders the discussion as meaningless; though I get the distinct impression you disagree with that assumption. Perhaps you meant that WITHOUT that assumption, the discussion is meaningless. (An assumption being something accepted as truth, to be used as part of a deductive process to prove other truths). But then you concede that "Yes, some people are more intelligent than others, . . ." If it can not be quantified, how can you tell if one person has more or less than any other?
An excellent anectdotal example by the way of my hypothesis that for most humans, emotions trump logic.
So I'm curious; since you obviously disagree with the traditional method of testing and assigning an IQ, but state that some are more intelligent than others, what is your measurement criteria?