Are you suggesting that all must agree upon certain definitions of terms before the discussion can even begin? — Arne

No, I'm saying that I need to know the definition the OP apllies in his/her statements in order to understand his/her statement, wich is required to determine whether or not his/her statements make sense to me.
Especially if the OP is using a different definition of the word than the definition(s) I am familiar with.

The discussion wether it's the 'right' definition is a complete seperate one. I even don't mind if the OP made up a word used in his/her statements, as long as he/she can define it to me using more familiar, less ambiguous words, so I become able to understand his/her statement.

Perhaps we can agree that your desire for definitions has its roots in a certain theory of meaning, one more or less in line with the ideas that Harry espouses and that I have discussed elsewhere. That theory of meaning was closely critiqued during the middle of last century, by philosophers from diverse backgrounds. — Banno

I don't know, I'm not sure what you are referring to. My point about providing definitions, especially on an international accessable forum, is that I think it's rather relevant to know when someone sais the word 'mile' wether its a landmile or a seamile since they are not the same , and preferably just translates the quantity to si standard, So i can just substitute the given definition for the word that may have several different meanings, or in case the word used is new to me.

If you think that IQ tests are bad designed, so they are not scientifically valid, you should show some kind of evidence. If your argument is that empirical science is inherently "invalid" in some grade, it is a selection fallacy or a kind of general skepticism equally fallacious. — Belter

I stated none of the sort. On the contrary, I think iq tests have been designed very carefully. I just think that the complexity of something as intelligence results in the iq tests having a greater error margin than for instance measuring cylinders as used in chemistry. Wich has been substanciated by my comparison of the error margins used in both. Since where we have measuring cylinders that measure up to 100 ml with an error margin of only 0,2 ml wich means an error margin of only 0,2% when measuring 100 ml , our best iq test still have an error margin of 15 points, resulting in an error margin of 15% on an iq score of 100.

Perhaps my formulation has been abit clumsy, but I got my critisism on iq test from scientific sources. My point is that we still have much to improve on iq tests to increase their accuracy, before they are just as accurate as measuring cylinders used in chemistry. Perhaps intelligence is too comlex we ever reach that level of accuracy, but I'm convinced they can be improved at least to the degree that we end up with an error margin that is half of what it is now.

Both mathematics and music are complex in their own ways yet there are those good at one but not the other. Surely if they were possessed of some abstract ability they would be innately good at both? — Pseudonym

Next to intelligence, some education on the subject is required. People who are good at both, and have an interest in their simularities, can give very interesting talks about the mathematical components in music.

Not necessarily. This would require a presumption that the intention of the language user is to accurately communicate some fact. Given what we know of human psychology, I think that's probably unlikely. — Pseudonym

Not sure what you are getting at. Of course it's not nessesarily the case at every instance, since people can be dishonest when they speak. One of the assumptions would be that the speaker isn't being intentionally dishonest for instance, if that's what you meant.

Your theory about IQ (predictable by people's belief about IQ tests) is not plausible. — Belter

Wich theory would that be, and why don't you consider it to be plausible? I don't have any theory on my name as far as I know, I merely refer to scientific theories commonly known within the scientific community that researches iq validity. All I have to add to those are hypothesis at best.

Under any run-of-the-mill notion of "measurement" seeing and "s" on a page and measuring an "s" on a page are entirely different kinds of activities — MetaphysicsNow

I agree on this, since it's very possible to see an s on a page without recognizing it as an s, especially to total illiterate people who don't even have a concept of what an 's' is. You can only start the measurement after seeing the 's'. So the chronological order is: 1 seeing the 's' 2 measureing the shape of the 's' 3 recognizing the 's'. Three steps you have trained your brain to perform within a second, wich someone unfamiliar with the letter 's' has not. Kids spend years in school to train this skill, so eventually some even can get it trained up to the level that they are able to read up to 500 words a minute accurately. Where at the start, even when all letters in the alfabet are known, it can take my 8 year old niece over a minute to read a 5 word sentence. Since she is less skilled at measuring the letters, and on occasion still confuses letters that look similar. d and p for instance are the same shape, just 180 degrees rotated. though when letters are the horizontal flip of each other it is still harder to her (like d and b, or p and q)

Basically, we don't look inside anyone's head for intelligence. If we judge it at all we judge it by the things people successfully do. Put a series of those sorts of things in a test and, by default, you do indeed have a device for measuring the thing we're calling 'intelligence'. Either that, or admit that we really don't know what sort of thing an intelligent person should be able to successfully do, and so abandon the idea that we have any means of measuring it, neither intuitive nor quantitative — Pseudonym

Agreed, though the fact that we speak about intelligence in a discriminating way, prooves that at least the ones who do this have at least some intuitive way of quantification they believe to be true enough to talk about it. Iq tests are merely an attempt to make such measurements more objective.

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. — FLUX23

Odd that you seem to think I don't understand statistics, while we at least seem to agree on this statement. Perhaps your reply was adressed at someone else?

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. — Belter

Exactly, the first statement is as useless as stating "the only thing math tests have ever been able to tell about anyone is how good or bad they are at taking math tests"
Ignoring the fact that it also tells something about the participants math skills.
The more relevant question is: how accurate are the tests?

The questioning of IQ validity is an evidence of low IQ. — Belter

I'd argue that the questioning of iq validity is evidence of high iq, but that total dismissal of iq validity is evidence of low iq. The first is about separating baby from bathwater, the second is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And when you recognise that you have made a mistake (if you ever do) do you thereby measure that fact? — MetaphysicsNow

The measuring preceeds the recognision.

No, that won't work either. — SophistiCat

Sure it works. It works for bodylenght, so why not for intelligence. If we want to determine whether someone is short or tall, we compare them to the average height. Next to this we can express their height in cm or inches, the latter doesn't tell whether someone is tall or short without a known average.

In case of children we even correct the measured lenght for age, same as with iq tests. Why assume it won't work if the same appraoch clearly works for other things we measure?

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? — FLUX23

Why are you assuming it is me who doesn't understand statistics? As long as you don't provide a decent argument for your assumption, you are just poisoning the well.
I might just as easily assume that it is you who doesn't understand statistics to the degree required to understand me correctly, and don't know enough about how iq tests are made and applied to give an accurate response. An assertion that at least is substanciated by the fact that you failed provide any actual counterargument to my statements, but instead opted for an ad hominem fallacy.

I didn't measure anything and I did not even compare your "wether" with a correctly typed "whether". — MetaphysicsNow

Our disagreement seems to be based upon your more narrow definition of the word 'to measure', You seem to apply it as something that only is about determining quantity. Perhaps if you reconsider my statements under this definition of measure : the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, or quantity of something;
In case of determining wether an 's' or a 'z' is spelled, you made a measurement of what you saw. Otherwise, how could you tell the two apart?

what do I measure when I recognise a spelling mistake — MetaphysicsNow

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.

The point of that would be to sound fashionable and win arguments by being the loudest and rudest. — Michael Ossipoff

I guess we agree that this kind of behaviour is about the opposite of having a philosophical discussion. The thing is, they don't actually win the argument, they merely succeeded into getting everyone to refrain from even attempting to discuss anything with them. If one wins an argument in a discussion both parties have won, quite different from the end result in debates. Too bad so many here don't seem to understand the difference yet.

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.

all we can talk about are concepts. Words are references to concepts, same goes for the word meaning.

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 inaccurate — SophistiCat

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.

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.

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.

Meaning is something that is transferred? — Banno

It's concept, sure.

And when you recognise that you have made a mistake (if you ever do) do you thereby measure that fact? — MetaphysicsNow

wich fact?

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.

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.

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.

Not having a definition in that sense, however, does not prevent me from recognising instances of intelligent behaviour — MetaphysicsNow

So clearly you believe to have a way to recognize instances of intelligent behaviour. In other words, means to measure intelligence. Hence intelligence can be measured. You are doing it.
So then the question is, is your way of doing it more or less accurate than the way iq tests do it. I don't know, but eventually you die, and so even if your way is better, untill you describe how you done it in a way so someone else can do it too, we are left with iq tests.

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 inaccurate, even in principle — SophistiCat

Does a measuring cylinder measure the amount of a liquid one puts in it?
Same answer, stictly spoken it just attempts to measure it, and it only does to a degree. Any chemist could tell you that each measuring cylinder comes with a specified error marge, wich has to be accounted for in calculations based upon the measurement of the amount of liquid used for the experiment. The difference is that when it comes to measuring cylinders the error marge is relative small (in measrueing cylinders used in chemistry, less than a percent of the total volume you measure), but when it comes to iq tests the error marge is much greater. Iq's 95% confidence interval is measured iq plust or minus 15 points, wich even increases the more iq scores differ from the average.

How do you expect me to answer the question when you have not even clarified what scientific definition of intelligence you suppose everyone to be familiar with. — MetaphysicsNow

You can use your own definition, wich you didn't provide but clearly must have, since you made a claim about intelligence before I came into the discussion.

Hence you are saying that the definition does not give the meaning. — Banno

Nope, I'm saying that the definition does not nessesarily give the meaning. But it could
The definition can only transfer the meaning when understood correctly.

So should philosophers concern themselves with mere definitions, or should they look to meaning? — Banno

Philosophers should look in the same direction when discussing what is seen, irrelevant of what they are looking for.

your underlying argument remains the same:
Premise: IQ tests measure something
Premise: That something is intelligence
Conclusion: Therefore IQ tests measure intelligence. — MetaphysicsNow

Nope, I merely stated the definition I use both ways.
definition:
intelligence : that what IQ tests measure
you are confusing making an argument with stating the applied definition.

— MetaphysicsNow

if by "dismissing the validity of IQ tests" you mean something like "raising skeptical challenges about what IQ tests are supposed to be measuring" — MetaphysicsNow

Nope, by dismissing the validity of IQ tests I meant complete dismissal, as in claiming their validity is 0. I have no problem with questioning the validity of IQ tests, wich in my opinion are still not 100% accurate, especially when applied interculturally. Everything measured in applied science that get's represented by numbers has an error margin. Obviously that error margin is greater when one applies iq tests interculturally compared to intraculturally.

At the end I asked you one simplequestion, You failed to adress this..
Ill repeat it for you here, so you can adress it:

Do you think there are differences in intelligence among people? — Tomseltje

Now either answer the question, or claim you can't answer it.. but simply not adressing it seems quite disingenious.

But that's to assume that intelligence is something that can be measured, and simply to say that it is because we measure it with IQ tests is a petitio principii. — MetaphysicsNow

What scientific definition? As far as I'm aware there is no settled scientific definition and if you just mean "intelligence is what IQ tests measure" then the charge of circularity remains meet. As for my definition of intelligence, my whole point is that intelligence is not a concept that can be defined in the way you want it defined. — MetaphysicsNow

Nonsense, we do measure intelligence using iq tests, so to say it can't be measured is silly, we are doing it. At best you may argue that you consider the method of measuring it not accurate enough, in wich case you ought to suggest a better option. Or you can make the claim that it's not accurate enough to reach a certain conclusions, in wich case you ought to provide at least one example of where that has been the case.

To dismiss the validity of iq tests would be to dismiss that the ability to answer questions correctly has any relation with cognitive ability.

merely applieng a definition both ways isn't the same as a circular argument. Stating that 1+1=2 and then when asked what two is, i answer '1+1' is not a circular argument, it's applieng the definition both ways, not very helpfull perhaps, but logically sound.

Do you think there are differences in intelligence among people?

So, going back to the OP, there is a point in discussing more than the definition when doing philosophy. — Banno

I'd even say the actual discussion about the subject doesn't start untill the definitions are clear.

But that's to assume that intelligence is something that can be measured, and simply to say that it is because we measure it with IQ tests is a petitio principii. — MetaphysicsNow

Nonsense, research done under a set of definitions, and then pointing out those definitions to someone disputing them is not a circular argument.

If you mean something different when using the word intelligence other than as defined in iq research, you ought to define it. Otherwise I'm going to assume you were referring to the scientific definition. Sure iq research and what they say about intelligence have their limitations, but I'm not aware of a more sensible approach.

Irrelevant. — tom

irrelevant to what? It's quite relevant to clarifying my statement wich you seemed to dispute.

The difference within males is greater than the difference within females — tom

I didn't state anything disputing this, so why is it relevant to mention?

The groups are quite different. Their standard deviations are different. — tom

I didn't say they weren't different, I pointed out that the differences within each group are greater than the differences between the two groups.

In other words, if you look at the bell curves, the surface area of the overlap of the groups is bigger than the 68% area of each group.

So, the argument is we can be certain that it is possible for us to be mistaken, therefore... — creativesoul

Therefore we can only talk about our concept of something, not about the actual something itself. This even goes for ourselves. We can only talk about how we perceive ourselves, not about our actual self. This difference is one of the causes of the dunning-kruger effect. If we would know our actual self, rather than just know our perception of our self, the dunning-kruger effect would not exist.

Looks like a tree to me. My conception is made out of language and stuff. The tree is not. Conceptions can be wrong. Trees cannot. — creativesoul

All that tells me is that what you are looking at fits with your conception of a tree, under the assumption your report is an honest one. The fact that conceptions can be 'wrong' or at least, can differ from person to person, it's by no means a guarantee that your report of witnessing a tree will cause me to see a tree when I look at the same thing. Since I could have a different concept of what a tree is, and event though I look at the same thing, it may not fit my concept. If such a difference occurs, it can be usefull to elaborate on each others concept, so both of us get the oppertunity expand our concepts of things.

If this is the case, what sort of thing is the "meaning"? Is it the definition? Is it a thing-in-the-head of the speaker? What is the meaning, apart from the use? — Banno

The meaning can be represented by a definition. The meaning is what the speaker/writer of the words intended to communicate. In other words, that what the speaker/writer meant with it.