tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post5167048018332707778..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: "Scientific Spectacles" Not EnoughGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-25071829878365813522012-03-07T18:56:01.269-06:002012-03-07T18:56:01.269-06:00Thanks for the clarification, Jim. Ever since the ...Thanks for the clarification, Jim. Ever since the baby arrived in late June, I've barely been able to follow blogs.<br /><br />(I often add "including my own" when thinking about that...)Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-56758106528192182092012-03-07T17:13:20.391-06:002012-03-07T17:13:20.391-06:00Gus, I think Inspector is referring to an idea I&#...Gus, I think Inspector is referring to an idea I've been developing for a while at The New Clarion.<br /><br />In short: physical causality moves entities; ideological causality, "ideas", is what moves entities with free will -- minds, in other words. It's related to the metaphysically given versus the man-made.<br /><br />What's breaking the IQ field, therefore, is the logical consequences of bad ideas -- ideological causality.<br /><br />Remember the comment I made a few weeks ago about intelligence versus rationality? Intelligence, being a metaphysical given "hardware feature", is physically caused; rationality, being a man-made "software feature" that is subject to an individual's choices, themselves driven by ideas -- is ideologically caused.<br /><br />Hence, "ideological" versus "physical" causation.<br /><br />I wrote about that specific topic <a href="http://www.newclarion.com/2011/11/authoring-ourselves-on-ideological-versus-physical-causation/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The basic principle is first described <a href="http://www.newclarion.com/2011/01/the-road-to-hell/" rel="nofollow">here</a>Jim Maynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-20215383843104373652012-03-02T02:43:28.327-06:002012-03-02T02:43:28.327-06:00Inspector, I was with you until that last sentence...Inspector, I was with you until that last sentence: you seem to have left something out.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-29484987333424686322012-03-01T22:10:41.518-06:002012-03-01T22:10:41.518-06:00Thanks for posting this, Gus. People have balked a...Thanks for posting this, Gus. People have balked at me when I tell them that, in my observation, IQ tests are categorically flawed. The whole field of IQ research is, in fact.<br /><br />I hope this evidence helps. But it shouldn't come as such a surprise to people. There are quite a few fields of science in which the research right now is systemically damaged. Nutrition, for example. And climate. Psychology as a whole, really.<br /><br />Of course, the reason for this flaw is the same reason for a lot of IQ disparities: Ideological Causality.Inspectorhttp://newclarion.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-28242573292598011622012-03-01T20:10:18.288-06:002012-03-01T20:10:18.288-06:00Or philosophically-minded.
People clearly do diff...Or philosophically-minded.<br /><br />People clearly do differ in ability, so I see some merit in attempting to quantify intelligence, but to study the conceptual faculty, one should be clear about the nature of concepts to begin with, as you indicate with your question about categories.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-31430198123371018252012-03-01T15:03:19.573-06:002012-03-01T15:03:19.573-06:00Well, I often wonder about the utility of this sor...Well, I often wonder about the utility of this sort of research. It seems to me that since they could not define intelligence these people decided to measure it instead.<br /><br />What did the researchers think would happen if they used the term 'appropriate categories’; appropriate for what and for whom? <br /><br />'It may well be that most people in modern Western culture go about wearing what Flynn calls "scientific spectacles", but that plainly doesn't make everyone scientists.'<br /><br />What is sad is that many scientists are not scientifically minded, either.Steve Dnoreply@blogger.com