• FLUX23

    See, you used the word "perfectly ordinary sense of measurement". This is why I am saying this is purely terminology problem.

    To be extreme, if I define pear in biological terms, then both western pear and eastern pear are pear. However, if I define pear as in western pear, then eastern pear is not pear. This is the sort of argument you and I have been making, which I feel is pointless.

    If you define "measurement" the way you define then recognition does not involves measurement. However, if you define "measurement" in the way I define, then recognition involves measurement. However, it is not a common practice to define "measurement" the way you do.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    I'm using the terms"measure" "measurement" and so on in exactly the way they are used in science and daily life. Scientists measure things all the time, for instance. Certainly there are philosophical issues around what measurement actually is, but they arise on the basis that it is always an intentional activity. You seem to be using "measure" in the sense of "differentially react to", thus stripping it of the intentional aspect, which is not common practice at all - it is a special and technical sense of "measure" that you have helped yourself to and that I am not even sure any scientist uses, you have singularly failed to provide me with a reference to such a definition, but perhaps there is one. My knee reacts differentially to being struck, but my knee doesn't measure anything when it does so.
    My skepticism about intelligence being something that comes in amounts and is measurable was under attack because I was supposed to have been forced to accept that I am measuring intelligence when I recognise intelligent behaviour. If by "measure" you mean just "differentially react to" then, because simply in recognising intelligent behaviour I differentially react to intelligent behavior, the idea that I "measure " intelligence in that sense is tautologically empty and says absolutely nothing to the point that intelligence is a thing that comes in amounts and can be measured in the way scientists measure things.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    You sound alot like someone acknowledging that he/she can move his/her arm, but denies the chemical reactions taking place within your muscle tissue.
    Exactly what I have I said that entails skepticism about the science of human physiology? Plenty of what I have said manifests skepticism about what the IQ industry is messed up in, but nothing I have said undermines the work of physiologists.
  • FLUX23

    No you are not, which is the problem. You also do not seem to understand how I defined measurement neither, which also a problem. And to accuse me of something I did not say it makes it even more of a problem. You are also twisting and playing around with words so that it can support your point, which is just plain wrong.

    But that is okay. I don't expect to you, because it doesn't matter anymore. I am not going to discuss this matter with your ill-conceived statements.

    Oh by the way, I am a scientist and I do measurement every weekdays. I have a PhD in chemistry and I skipped a year in doing so. Thank you very much.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    Oh by the way, I am a scientist and I do measurement every weekdays. I have a PhD in chemistry and I skipped a year in doing so. Thank you very much.
    Why are you parading your credentials? Does having a PhD in chemistry - or indeed any subject - provide immunity from conceptual confusion?
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.