• Tomseltje
    135
    But all this makes sense only if the liquid volume can be given independently of what the measuring cylinder is gauging.SophistiCat

    We do have a standard for both volume measurement and iq measurement to compare it too. By repeatedly measuring and see how much the results of that differ from what ought to be expected from the standard, we can determine the error margin. The error margin from reading from the measuring cylinder is included in the error margin that comes with the measuring cylinder. Provided of course you apply the instructions on how to read a measuring cylinder, something any chemist is supposed to learn in his/her first year.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    When you recognise someone in a crowd, do you measure them?MetaphysicsNow

    I'd say you do. you measure to what degree they fit your memory of the person, and if it's close enough you will assume it's the same person. Though your assumption could be wrong when meeting that persons twin, especially if you didn't know they had a twin. estimating is a low resolution form of measuring.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315
    And when you recognise that you have made a mistake (if you ever do) do you thereby measure that fact?
  • Tomseltje
    135
    I speculate that IQ test is "accurate" but have "notable deviation".FLUX23

    If by accurate you mean there is no error margin, they are inaccurate, but the same goes for measuring liquids in a measuring cylinder. The only difference is that measuring cylinders used in chemistry are less inaccurate than iq tests.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    And when you recognise that you have made a mistake (if you ever do) do you thereby measure that fact?MetaphysicsNow

    wich fact?
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315
    Take your pick. I presume you have made a mistake at some point during your life, and have recognised that you had made that mistake. In that case, the fact that you recognised, yet did not measure, was the fact that you made that mistake.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    is that it is a complex concept that does not have any one-one relation to some property of human beings.jkg20

    I agree it's a complex concept, but it's also a property of human beings.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    Take your pick. I presume you have made a mistake at some point during your life, and have recognised that you had made that mistake. In that case, the fact that you recognised, yet did not measure, was the fact that you made that mistake.MetaphysicsNow

    So the fact you are referring to is the fact of recognizing to have made a mistake. Well in that case, no , but you measured something that made you recognize making a mistake. In case of the twins, when coming closer you may have noticed some smaller details that led you to this conclusion. We don't measure fact, we distill facts from measuring and interpreting our measurement.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    If IQ tests measure intelligence and intelligence is nothing other than what IQ tests measure, then I cannot see how an IQ test can be inaccurateSophistiCat

    Simple, we have different kind of iq tests. Had all been 100% accurate, there would be no difference. However, when we use different tests, the results differ, hence either one of the tests used is inaccurate, or both are.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    Recognising something and measuring that thing are, in general, two entirely distinct activities.MetaphysicsNow

    Sure, if you want to go into that much detail. Then I'd argue that in order to recognize, you first measured, meaning the recognizing comes after the measuring and is part of the interpretation of what you measured.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315

    Now, you seem to be implying that even though recognition is not measurement, each recognition is made on the basis of having made a measurement. However, even that is not obviously true - what do I measure when I recognise a spelling mistake? I see the mistake, but seeing isn't always measuring.
  • Tomseltje
    135
    what do I measure when I recognise a spelling mistakeMetaphysicsNow

    In order to determine wether there is a 'z' or an 's' written, you measure several things. Once that is done, you can compare it with what shape ought to be written. Children learning to write are not as skilled in this as you probably are, and thus more often confuse the two, resulting in more spelling mistakes. Even to determine wether we describe something as a curve or an angle, we need to measure. Hence it's so much harder to make an ai that can accurately recognize handwriting, than to make an ai that can accurately write handwriting.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315
    In order to determine wether there is a 'z' or an 's' written, you measure several things.
    That's disputable. For instance, I simply saw that you misspelt "whether" "wether" - I didn't measure anything and I did not even compare your "wether" with a correctly typed "whether". Developing the skill of spotting spelling mistakes may or may not involve "measuring" , although it would be a strange definition of "measuring" if it did, but even so that would not in the least entail that everytime I spot a spelling mistake now that I have that skill, that I am measuring something. When you learn to play a musical instrument such as a violin, you begin by concentrating very hard on where you place your fingers on the fingerboard. When you are a proficient violinist you no longer need to do that. Things that are done in order to gain a skill are not necessary to continuing to manifest that skill.
  • iolo
    29
    All I know about IQ is that all the RAF could ever find to say about me was that I was extremely intelligent (it's doubtless gone off since I took the test!). They key point about all this inequality drivel, in my view, is that before we start using such things to make some people important, we must decide what human beings are for, as we might decide, for instance, that a knife is for cutting, at which point sharpness matters. Since humanity seems to be for nothing in particular, it is an end in itself, as are we all, and judging people on size of ears. range of voices or ability to pee far should be worth what they deserve - nothing.
  • FLUX23
    76

    Okay, but I don't understand why you assume that intelligence CANNOT be measured. It certainly can.

    If you are right, then the word "intelligent" would never have exited, much less used by anyone. It is because we have some (vague) concept of intelligence that we can use the word. I don't need to know the precise definition to say that Richard Feynman was intelligent. I don't need to know the precise definition to say that Albert Einstein was intelligent. But objectively speaking, both of these people are very intelligent academically. The fact that we are saying this already proves that we have some concept in our mind that is capable of testing people's intelligence. So intelligence can be tested qualitatively. The only question is how quantitatively. IQ tests are merely one of these approaches to quantitatively measure intelligence.
  • FLUX23
    76

    Now I understand that you do not understand statistics. If you don't understand statistics, then you won't even know what IQ tests are about. Why are you arguing if you don't know IQ tests?
  • SophistiCat
    405
    We do have a standard for both volume measurement and iq measurement to compare it too.Tomseltje

    You keep saying this, but when you are asked what that standard is, you demur or insist that the measurement is the standard.

    Simple, we have different kind of iq tests. Had all been 100% accurate, there would be no difference. However, when we use different tests, the results differ, hence either one of the tests used is inaccurate, or both are.Tomseltje

    No, that won't work either. If intelligence is just what the tests measure, and you insist that this is the case for all tests of intelligence, then different results can only mean that intelligence is different in each case.

    Tomseltje, you should understand by now that you cannot cheat your way out with this simple maneuver of equating intelligence with test results. Even setting aside the issue of accuracy, suppose we accept your idiosyncratic definition of intelligence - what then? So you have a device that measures something, and all we know about that something is that it is just what the device measures.

    b8a226b31d91e75c17ca3d9b68617f80.jpg

    If you want to have a substantive discussion, you have to address the question of what intelligence is, and how intelligence tests can measure it, how accurate and how useful such tests are, etc. But for that you actually have to care and know something about the subject, and I don't think that you do.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315
    That there is a concept of intelligence is not in question and how we gain that concept, or any other for that matter, is perhaps an interesting question. However, that the concept corresponds to a measurable property of human beings is what is in question. Human beings deal with plenty of complex concepts that we learn how to use without having to measure anything (at least in any straightforward sense of "measure"): intelligence is one of them, niceness is another example, there are plenty of others. Somewhat akin to 17th century physicists who developed the (now discarded) theory of phlogiston, psychologists and others seem to presume that there must be something objective and measurable underlying the use of the concept (yes, they even do this for niceness apparently). But that is simply a presumption and is entirely unsupported. Furthermore, unlike the developers of phlogiston theory, the motivation for the development of IQ testing and the surrounding technical apparatus was not disinterested pursual of knowledge about the nature of our use of a concept, but was actually driven by prejudices about what kind of people had more of this magical stuff than others.
    The burden of proof here is not on the skeptic who accepts we have an interesting concept but who suspects a category mistake is being made when the concept is assimilated to physical concepts such as heat and mass. The burden of proof is on those who insist that the concept corresponds to a measurable property. As @SophistiCat points out, the burden of proof is actually more specific than just identifying such an objective property, but also that the property comes in differing amounts and is not simply present or absent.
  • Belter
    79
    And the only thing that IQ tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking IQ tests.MetaphysicsNow

    This the wrong point. Why IQ tests are different to other psychological ones? The questioning of IQ validity is an evidence of low IQ.
  • MetaphysicsNow
    315
    You know, I'd never thought about it like that. By God you are right! I am a dumbass. Thanks for pointing that out.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment