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? — Tomseltje
I refer you to my final reply to FLUX23 - I believe you must have a very specific theory of mind-brain identity involving a very specific definition of "measurement" and probably some representational view of perception such that merely in seeing something, a measurement is always being made. 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
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? — Tomseltje
However, you confused "accuracy" with "precision". — FLUX23
Your entire argument is that intelligence is adequately measured by intelligence tests — SophistiCat
See my example of a violin player who at the beginning has to concentrate very hard on the exact positioning of fingers on the fingerboard, but who - when fully proficient - no longer needs to concentrate on the exact positioning of his or her fingers, they just hit the right spot. — MetaphysicsNow
Scientific theories are supported by empirical data. You have not data (I suppose) of your claim. — Belter
It is possible, but again you do not show any evidence. You should cite any actual IQ tests — Belter
If the IQ scores are always lower (or higher) than the perfect test, and the values vary greatly between individuals compared to the perfect test, then the IQ test is both "inaccurate" AND have "deviation". — FLUX23
wich claim I made are you referring to? — Tomseltje
Why do you want me to cite an iq test as evidence? — Tomseltje
You said that rejecting IQ tests shows low IQ, and to question its validity shows high IQ. — Belter
The questioning of IQ validity is an evidence of low IQ. — Belter
So how about if we measure weight with a thermometer? (We'll just call it a "weight-measuring device"... for good measure.) We are measuring something, we can do comparisons, calculate average, etc. We should be good, right? — SophistiCat
Because you are questioning them, but you do not cite anyone. It is such as to question that thermometers are not reliable, but without to give an example of it. — Belter
OK, but the general point holds: activities required to gain a skill are not required to maintain a skill. Recognising an "s" is a skill, perhaps measuring is required to gain that skill (although I am still unconvinced of that, you seem to have a model of human cognition that is generally contestable), but even so it does not follow from that that measuring in any way shape or form is required to maintain it. — MetaphysicsNow
Very well, here is an example, the precision of an iq test has the 95% reliability interval at measured iq + or - 15 iq points. 15 iq points is also the standard deviation in measured iq in a population. — Tomseltje
Recognizing something using your eyes includes measuring
activities required to gain a skill are not required to maintain a skill — MetaphysicsNow
It is another abstract example — Belter
In my view, a rational skepticism would question the validity of the Raven Test, or any other IQ test — Belter
For example, measuring the height and length of a wall in order to work out how much paint I'll be needing. — MetaphysicsNow
That's what you think, I didn't say you should be concious of it.No such intentional measuring activity is going on when I recognise an "s" on a page — MetaphysicsNow
What is that notion of measurement? — MetaphysicsNow
brains are not things that measure. Human beings measure things and by analogic extension, we have created devices that also measure things — MetaphysicsNow
It makes sense to say "thermometers measure temperature" since we measure temperature with thermometers — MetaphysicsNow
So we can unconsciously measure things?That's what you think, I didn't say you should be concious of it.
We measured temperature with our heat sensor cells in our skin way before we discovered how to make a device like a thermometer. You may think its an uncommen way of applieng the word to measure, but actually it's the more common way, we have done so for millions of years, thermomenters only exist a few hundred years.
If we weren't able to measure without such devices, we wouldn't be able to determine whether the water we were boiling is hot or still cold when putting our hand into it.
I understand. English is also not my mother tongue so I can understand it happens.You are probably right on this part, however, that doesn't mean it's an indication of my level of understanding statistics. More likely it's just a translation error, since I'm not a native english speaker.
My mathematical training was in my native language. So thanks for pointing it out. — Tomseltje
My apologies for causing confusion on this, I didn't think the difference was that relevant to the subject in this case. Since on a single measurement the precision influences the accuracy. Wich applies in this subject, since generally the individuals only get tested once for iq.
Alas there is evidence that this is the case. I assume we don't disagree on the deviation. But since there are several tests for iq, we have a certain iq test that has results that are on average 12 points lower than another iq test. So either one of the tests is inaccurate and off by 12 points, or both of the tests are inaccurate, off by 0-12 points. — Tomseltje
Well acts and processes are distinct things — MetaphysicsNow
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.