Re: whale brains
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
21 Nov 1995 00:53:52 -0500
bdiebold@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) writes:
>This pretty clearly says, if you want to measure intelligence you first
>have to start by assuming that humans have more of it than chimps, chimps
>more than dogs, etc. That is, you have decided, before any measurements
>have been made, what the comparative results will be.
You got it half right. Measurements with instruments provide
better accuracy and precision. In order to produce the
instruments you already must have made "measurements" with
your naked senses, those things we call "observations".
There is no applemeter except our eyes and perception.
>I can't see any difference between what Hubey has written above, and me
>deciding to figure out which is farther from New Haven, California or
That is the reason why you are still far away from understanding
what science is than I am.
Chances are you've never done or understood any science at all
except third hand, via the writings of some second hander.
>If you can devise a measurement for intelligence, first explain what you
>mean by intelligence, and then provide a mechanism to generate the
>measurement.
Wrong.
Either we know and agree what intelligence is in which case we
argue about whether the IQ tests measure it.
or
We have fuzzy definition of intelligence so we wind up all agreeing
that some test i.e. the IQ test measures it; therefore now we
have defined intelligence as that which the IQ test measures. This
is the operationalization phase. In this case, then people will
argue about whether this is the right test and whether it
should be called what it is called.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|