IQ tests measure one thing, and only one thing, uncontroversially: the ability to take an IQ test. — MetaphysicsNow

Sure, though that doesn't mean that the result doesn't say anything about intelligence. Since we don't have any better means to measure intelligence, that is what we use.

The difference is a lot less than the standard deviation, being approximately 0. The SDs are not the same though. — tom

Sure, the point however is, that as long as the difference between the averages are less than either standard deviation, the two groups are more alike than different from each other.

that's a definition, which I disagreed with above. Stating it's nonsense isn't an argument. If I take 5 years longer to become better at chess than you, people will think I'm more intelligent than you irrespective of the speed at which you initially developed. An IQ test tests results not learning ability any way so I'm not even certain you base this on. The ability to learn is a type of intelligence but learning languages is totally different than learning football and cannot be caught in a single measurement. — Benkei

If we talk about intelligence in relation to iq tests, you don't get to choose the definition. It's given by the tests. Now if as you suggest, intelligence is merely about learning rather than learning speed, then why do intelligence tests apply a correction for age?

Sure you could argue that there are skills that require intelligence to learn that are not measured in iq tests, but I don't see how thats relevant to anyting I stated.

the whole IQ idea is based on a fundamental category error that intelligence is something that can be measured. — MetaphysicsNow

We do measure it, so it can be measured. How accurately it can be measured, especially when measured interculturally, is still being discussed. Another thing is what can be concluded from the measurement, wich is also still under discussion.

How about the sex difference in IQ? — tom

The differences in average iq between men and women are less than the standard deviations. Meaning that the differences in iq between men and women are less than the differences among men and less than the differences among women.

My understanding of statistics is not sophisticated enough for me to figure it out. — T Clark

At least you seem to understand the nessecity of understanding statistics in order to say something sensible about statistical data on iq.

Maybe 20% of students in school need to be very well educated so that they can serve the interests of a technologically complex society under the control of an elite. 20% of the students are getting an excellent education, more or less.

If 80% of students are getting a run of the mill education, it is because more is not deemed necessary. A lot of today's students are not going to be doing complex tasks that require insight and theoretical thinking. This is a long-term trend, observed for the last 50 years, or so. — Bitter Crank

I disagree, I think all children need to be well educated. Wich isn't to say they all should be educated the same. Well educated to me means, best suited for the child, not the highest degree of complexity of the material tought. Since only if we provide children with the best education suited to them, they may reach their max potential.

I see intelligence as the application of a person's ability (whether innate or acquired) to accomplish a task in a manner exceeding the average person's ability to accomplish said task. — Benkei

Nonsense, intelligence is not about how well one can perform a task, its about how quickly one can learn to perform a task.
Though of course, if a person demonstrated to be able to perform a task, that person must at least have the intelligence required to learn to perform that task within the time that person has been living.

It’s no wonder people hate IQ and intelligence research because it reveals a set of seriously dismal facts about the incredible range of ability among human beings. — Vinson

It's true that iq research may reveal some uncomfortable facts. However most people disliking/hating iq research seem to conflate iq with virtue.

The problem with research into IQ is that people are mostly interested in using it as justification for drawing conclusions about differences in intelligence between races. Is that where this discussion is going? — T Clark

The main problem about that is that most of them don't know enough about basic statistics to say anything sensible about it. Many of them seem to think they can apply statistical data to individual cases. Resulting in ridiculous statements like "on average asians have a higher iq than whites, so since I'm asian and you are white, I must have a higher iq than you", conflating chance with facts, unwarrently assuming that the possibility with the lesser chance to occur, will not occur.

I discuss trees. Trees are a part of everything discussed. Therefore, not everything discussed is human report. — creativesoul

Nope, to discuss is to report, and you don't know about trees, you merely know about your concept of trees. Hence you report about your concept of trees.

Odd, then, if these ideas are understood, that one should think definitions necessary.

There is a logical conundrum in the idea that the meaning of a word is given by other words - by its definition. Words form a self-referential sphere.

So how could we learn the meaning of words, if that meaning is given by more words? How do we break into the sphere of language?

The answer is of course that there is a way of understanding what words mean that is not given by more words, but found in the way words are used.

Any philosophical analysis that commences with giving definitions can be dismissed by dismissing those definitions.

Hence the need to understand what we are doing with words.

Don't look to meaning, look to use. — Banno

The ones familiar enough with the meaning of the words used and their relation can understand without further defining, the ones who are not familiar enough don't. In wich case one can become familiar, definitions can help with that.

Though of course the conundrum still exists when there are not enough references in common among the participants of the discussion to explain.

Learning the meaning of words, by providing more words, is merely the result of the assumption that the meaning of the other words is known better. If it is, it can work, if it's not it's futile.

Sure one answer is that we familiarize with words by observing how they are used. However, that's not very helpfull if a word gets used in a way that is new to the observer, especially when it's not even clear that it is used in a different way.

You can't reasonably dismiss definitions given with a statement/philosophical analysis. It's like dismissing the legend given with a map. If you dismiss the legend the map becomes useless. If you dismiss the given definitions, the statement becomes meaningless. If the maker of the statement was sloppy in his/her definitions, one could help improve them though.

You can't separate the meaning of words from the use of words, Words used have a meaning. If you change the use, you might change the meaning. If you change the meaning, you change the use. Better look at both.

because then you get into arguments about the "correct" definition instead of just going along with the OP's meaning for the sake of the argument. — NKBJ

If that happens it's just silly. The OP is the only one who can provide the correct definition of the words used in his/her opening statement. There is no reasonable disagreeing about that. Wich doesn't mean that its unreasonable to respond by mentioning an alternative word to use for given definition. In general, the definition should be given by the one introducing the word. Even in dictionaries we have lots of words that each have several different meanings, in a statement, not all meanings may apply, wich apply and wich don't is determined by the one making the statement. And it's even possible the person making the statement applies a definition that's not even in the dictionary. In wich case it usually is even more important to provide the definition of the word used, especially when requested by participants in the discussion.

Everything is human report?

Nah. Horrible form of monism... — creativesoul

Such an obvious strawman, really? I didn't say everything is human report, I said everything discussed is human report, there is a difference.

Strictly speaking from my own, human reports are statements about the facts. Statements can be true/false. Facts cannot. — creativesoul

But all we talk about are human reports. What I say is my report to you, what you say is your report to me. Humans use their senses to observe the world, but there is not a 100% guarantee they will accurately represent what is happening 100% of the time. Alcohol can make you see more things than that are actually there for instance.

Are you familiar with the evil genius concept in classic philosophy? Or the movie the matrix?

On my view, facts are events. Events cannot be false. I proposed having a set of facts that everyone agrees to. The agreement doesn't make them facts. The agreement makes them uncontroversial. — creativesoul

Sure, events cannot be false, however when we think we observe an event, we don't know wether we actually observe an event, or are just delusional or hallucinating. Hence human reports of events are not nessesarily consistent with the events, but we can only discuss human reports of events. To treat those as facts, means that we already apply the axiom that the human reports of events can be treated as facts as if enough humans provide the samer report of events.

We've been working from two different conceptions of the term "fact".

Do you understand that and agree? — creativesoul

I considered it a possibility, though if so, I don't understand your objections to my original statement about axiomatic facts.
Perhaps I ought to clarify some more on it:

In general most people would agree that '5+5=10' is a fact. but its only a fact under the axiom of a decimal system, since for instance under the axiom of a hexadecimal system this isn't a fact, its just incorrect, since in a hexadecimal system 5+5=A not 10. 10 in a hexadecimal system translates to 16 in the decimal system.

The deflection is real. Philosophical discussions can lead to questions about person's subjective actions. You think it is a personal attack, when I am using logic to display the hypocrisy in your argument. Point me to a general question I have refused to answer, and you better be specific. And ironically, you can't answer whether or not you eat meat because you know it will display your inconsistency. — chatterbears

Nonsense, wether or not my ideas on morality are coherent with my actions is not what is discussed. The discussion merely is about the ideas on morality. Now even if you were to point out that my actions were inconsistent with my ideas about morality, is by no means evidence that my ideas about morality are incorrect. It's a common logical fallacy, known as a red herring, and more precisely the red herring called 'poisoning the well'. The fact that you choose to ask for my personal actions, while not being able so far to even give a single reply that demonstrates you understood my position correctly, just strengthens my suspicion you are attempting to make such fallacy. You even admitted to that by this reply "you can't answer whether or not you eat meat because you know it will display your inconsistency."
It definately does not, you don't know what my vieuw on it is even, so you are incapable of determining wether my actions are inconsistent with my vieuw on morality, wether or not I eat meat. Hence the answer to the question wether or not I eat meat is totally irrelevant. The fact that you keep pushing for the answer clearly demonstrates your attempt at making an argument that is obviously fallacious.

Point me to a general question I have refused to answer, and you better be specific — chatterbears

I asked you several times for your definition on the word 'animals' as used in your opening statement.

Are you trolling, at this point? I have cleared up this idea multiple times throughout this thread. SENTIENT BEINGS, is what I am referring to. This includes humans and non-human animals. Also, both questions apply. Is it wrong to eat sentient beings? Yes. Is it wrong to factory farm them? Yes. Are people immoral for contributing to the industry of factory farming? Yes. This is a fairly simple conversation, that apparently confuses you to the point of not understanding what a sentient being is. — chatterbears

Nonsense, you gave a very vague definition. It's by no means clear that when I encounter a random animal, in the biological sense of the word, this animal qualifies as sentient or not. Sure, you mentioned humans, pigs, cows and chickens as being sentient, so in those cases it's clear, but what about the other millions species of animals? How do I determine wether they are sentient, and thus according to your morality I'm allowed to eat them.

And just to continue pointing out the inconsistency. Almost everyone on this thread has stated that factory farming is wrong and immoral, yet almost everyone on this thread still eats meat. Cognitive dissonance anyone? — chatterbears

Even if it were relevant to the discussion, you don't know wether or not I eat meat. And even if I did, you don't know where I would get it from. You are just being presumptuous, only increasing my suspicions that you are not actually interested in the philosophy of the claimed topic, but instead abuse this forum as an oppertunity to unwarrentedly claim the moral highground and spread your dogmatic beliefs on veganism.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? — chatterbears

If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this." — Tomseltje


From thousands of different religions, denominations within those religions, different churches within those denominations and different people who believer different things within those churches; it is clear that God has not made his message clear enough. My question is not formulated on assumption. It is formulated on fact. If you want to say that God DOES in fact clear up confusion between believers, you would need to provide evidence for that. — chatterbears

This response I gave you quoted from was refferring to your question implying that you already established that God doesn't as a fact. When I asked you how you established this fact, you denied you meant to claim this as a fact, hence I suggested a better formulation for your question that doesn't imply this. So I don't see why you start talking about other religions as a response to my suggestion for improving your question.

Now if you come back on your own word, and now claim that god doesn't as a fact, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Now it may be the case that god's message isn't clear enough to you, but that doesn't mean god isn't clearing it up. God acts through people, so me attempting to explain how it works, if succesfull, is god clearing it up.

There is an old joke wich is quite an analogy for your position:
During a flood, an old farmer sits on top of his roof, and the water has risen to his feet. A boat comes by and the people on it invite the farmer to get in. But the farmer sais "No need, Jesus will save me". So the boat goes on to resque other people. When the water is at the farmers waist, another boat comes and the people on board invite the farmer to come aboard. Again the farmer replies "No need, Jesus will save me". So this boat also continues its way to resque other people. When the water is at the farmers shoulders a third boat comes, and the farmer gets invited to come aboard. But still the farmer replies "No need, Jesus will save me". So this boat also continues its way without the farmer, and the farmer drowns. When the farmer sees Jesus in heaven, he approaches him and quite agitated he sais to Jesus "I had faith in you, and you let me drown, how could you?", on wich Jesus replies "I did send three boats to rescue you, but if you are too stupid to get in, what can I do?"

So when I talk to my wife about an issue, and at the end of the conversation we better understand each other, that is apparently God revealing the true meaning of scripture to us? — chatterbears

Partly yes. God is the logos. In that regard, what is worshipped is the human ability to speak truthfully about what they experienced.

Have no idea how you've arrived at that conclusion... — creativesoul

If you don't accept any axioms, you won't get beond Descartes "I think, therefor I am". So if you dismiss all 'facts' derrived from axioms, that's about the only fact left.

That quote is untenable. It makes no sense. It is self-contradictory on it's face. You're conflating conclusions based upon axioms with facts. Facts cannot be false. Conclusions based upon axioms can. — creativesoul

Sure, you can uphold that strict definition of what a fact is. In wich case there is only one fact that can be supported by the evidence, wich is 'I am'. However, I don't think you actually do, I think you vieuw other things to be 'facts' as well. You simply may not be aware of the axiom(s) you derrived those 'facs' from.

Say we have a set of facts(events that everyone agrees took place). — creativesoul

And here is my confirmation, events that everyone agrees took place, are not facts in the strict way you were suggesting facts to be in your post to me. Events that everyone agrees took place can simply be a result of mass delusion. In order to accept those as facts, you already applied the axiom that the universe is real.

I mainly wanted to get across the point that seeds don't deserve the right to always become their diploid form. — yatagarasu

Nonsense, seeds are diploid already, they are the result of the haploid gametes joining. You are basicly arguing that in case of plants its ok to abort their embryos and eat the placenta. While at the same time arguing its wrong to eat a gamete. Not that there is a contradiction, just summarizing how I understood your position.

For those people they can follow the high calorie diets or if they can't then we can make an exception for cases like that. They don't constitute a massive part of the population anyways. — yatagarasu

So you are arguing that in those exceptions it's not immoral to eat animals? I'm glad we can agree on this but then we are discussing another topic, not 'is it wrong to eat animals?' but 'under what circumstances is it wrong to eat animals?'. I would estimate that such a topic would provide a more fruitfull discussion.

So when you cut out the seeds of an apple you aren't expected to plant them all, only some. — yatagarasu

So when eating a strawberry you expect someone to pick of the about 100 seeds on it before putting it into his/her mouth?

How do you think Jains survive? — yatagarasu

Some jainists even go as far as to sweep the ground in front of them whereever they walk to prevent them accidently stepping on an ant or some other tiny insect. Is this how you move about as well?

Supplemental/synthesized proteins would solve this — yatagarasu

I'm not fond of food created in laboratories, I prefer natural sources. Besides the availability of those seems rather restricted to dense populated area's.


Sorry for messing up the chronology, I appreciate your responses, you adequately answer my questions so far, and it seems our opinions don't differ that much when it comes down to the important parts, since you do seem to recognize the importance of the difference in circumstances when attempting to answer questions about ethics. Wich mainly was my point when objecting to the suggestion that it's immoral to eat animals under any circumstance.

To me the quest for knowledge starts with Socrates' "To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.", expanded by Descartes to "I think, therefore I am". That's about where what we can truely know stops and strictly spoken where facts stop. Beond that we need axioms, if the applied axiom gets questioned, what we took as facts based upon that axiom gets reduced to an opinion. As long as the applied axiom doesn't get questioned we can take our opinions based upon that axiom as if they were facts.

Ok, sure. But until you have created that animal utopia, you would be immoral for eating meat as of right now. Because, by eating meat, you are contributing to the current conditions of how factory farms actually operate today. — chatterbears

Nonsense, you are assuming about things you can't know. You don't know wether I eat meat, nor where I would get it from if I did.

So. Do you eat meat? — chatterbears

Fishing for an oppertunity to claim the moral highground again? A very see through and disingenious tactic mr chatterbears. You obviously have great troubles separating a philosophical discussion from a personal attack. Asking irrelevant personal questions while refusing to answer general questions that are directly related to the topic.

You still haven't given an answer on what you mean when you say 'animals', so I'm still not sure what the topic is about, other than a shallow rant against the horrors in todays bioindustries. Now if that's all you wanted, you had better formulated the starting question as "is it wrong to commercially breed animals for consumption the way it is done now?" rather than "Is it wrong to eat animals?"

Your question was asking me why I assume he hasn't. I never assume he hasn't, I have stated I am not convinced he has. If you have proof/evidence that he has, please provide it. You claim he has, so I asked for an example. — chatterbears

really?

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? — chatterbears

You sure have odd ways of stating you are not convinced of something, the question as you formulated clearly implies this assumption you now deny. If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this."

Kamikaze Butter asked first, so I answered him. I'm not gonna answer twice on the same question, but I can quote my answer for you, since you were too lazy to read the entire thread:

Example? — Kamikaze Butter


Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other. — Tomseltje

You can eat the egg white, which is equivalent to the endosperm in seeds, but not the egg yolk. — yatagarasu

Why can't I eat the yolk? if the egg is unfertillized there is no embryo, but there is still yolk. Perhaps study egg anatomy abit more if you assumed that the yolk was the embryo.

Plus there are several fruits that have fats/proteins in them (avacado, coconut, dates et cetera) — yatagarasu

Sure, however, humans need to consume about 20 different amino acids their bodies can't make, it's very hard to consume the right quantities of these by merely eating plants. Though technically not entirely impossible. However it would include eating seeds wich means eating plant embryos.

5000 kcal? Really? Last I checked the average human needed about 2000-3000 kcal — yatagarasu

Na, you are off, its about 1500 kcal for women and 2000 kcal for men a day, however that is on average where most people don't live in extreme cold climates nor do intense physical labor. However, those guys at oil platforms easily burn about 8000 kcal a day some even up to 10000 kcal a day, a man living in the arctic with outdoor activities burns 5000 kcal a day with a body mass of 100 kg.
However, if you are going to set ethical goals for all humans, you should include them.
Besides, not many edible plants grow in the arctic, and its quite expensive to import them. So how are those people going to survive if they start following your ethics?

Well, if their destruction is avoidable we should try to avoid them, but if not they fall under the same category as fungi and bacteria. — yatagarasu

No destruction is avoidable, every living organism dies eventually. You could argue one shouldn't be killing them prematurely, but thats an entirely different discussion.

Yes, gametes are living. So you just avoid eating them. That does not mean you have to plant every one. — yatagarasu

In many cases it's unavoidable, Pollen are the gametes of plants, you are saying we can't eat them either? Going down that line means we can't eat honey either. Many gametes will die soon anyhow if they don't succeed finding the complementary gamete in time, so why can't we eat them? If a fish jumps on dry ground, with no possibility to get into the water again on its own, it sounds alot like you are arguing it's more moral to let it suffocate rather than killing it and eating it. Contrary to a morality derrived from the idea of minimizing suffering.

Gametes do not have the right to always be planted and some will die of old age anyways. — yatagarasu

You don't plant gametes, you plant seeds. plant gametes are the male pollen and the female ova (eggcell). once a male gamete fertillized egg cell, a seed will develop.

They are in a suspended state, not living as the plant, animal was that produced them, so their rights are different in this case. — yatagarasu

What do you mean suspended state? they may not be living as the plant only having half the genotype, but why assume their lives are inferior to their diploid counterparts? In some species the haploid part is the dominant mode of being.

Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course. — Life101

The benefit of praying is that it orients ones mind on what's important, if ones mind is more orientated at what goals are important, it's more likely one will succeed in achieving those goals.

Beware of a scientist who believes there is a god. I didnt take a gallup poll but most probably do not believe. Unless you include charatans like deepok chopra a scientist. Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. Etc etc.

true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation. — Life101

Of course Einstein was a believer, he was a believer in the scientific method at least. Any descent scientist with additional believes knows that in order to practice science, he/she has to put his/her additional believes on the coat rack when entering the lab.

If god were everywhere there could be no one else in a distinct location, because it would void gods omnipresence. — ShowOfForce

If the higgs boson can be everywhere, then why can't god?

The only concept of God that I agree could exist is a kind of "sentient" universe. However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be — SnowyChainsaw

That's one solution. Another solution is to read the 'in the beginning' in genisis, not as 'in the beginning of the universe' but rather as 'in the beginning of humans becoming concious'.

There cannot be any beginning if there is still a before. — bahman

Nonsense, we can talk about the beginning of the industrial era, of course there was something before the beginning of the industrial era.

One has to tell why the act of creation out of noting is logically possible and the process of noting to something is logically impossible. — bahman

Where was this claim made? The big bang theory doesn't make such claim, nor does the bible.

For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms. — Rich

That would be the individual perspective. However, for groups of humans trieng to survive it was the logos, since a group of one had no chance at survival.

I for one can't make sense of beings before time creating time and so on. — dog

Where was such a claim made? Though one could think of it as humans becoming aware of the passing of time, and starting concepts as past and future. Before humans had a word for time, there were no conversations about time, so in a way it didn't exist from the perspective that things only exist among humans if they can talk about them.

I don’t know how to quote officially — Starthrower

Select the part you wish to quote, then hover your mouse over it and right click, it will give the quote option then.

Somehow God brought about the cosmos. We don't know how, and we almost certainly will never get an explanation — Bitter Crank

Genisis is quite clear on this, it was spoken into being. Though the cosmos wasn't mentioned there.

Give an example of this? — chatterbears

Answer the question?

Example? — Kamikaze Butter

Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other.

I still haven't gotten a good explanation of natural disasters or why god decided to make life so cruel. — darthbarracuda

the abrahamic god with the archetype father respresenting order is one half of the story, nature with the archetype mother representing chaos is the other half. God didn't make life so cruel, nature did, god is the answer on how to limit suffering caused by nature.

the Western, Abrahamic god, is incoherent with evolution. — darthbarracuda

Why assume the abrahamic god is incorherent with evolution? I studied both and I don't see a discrepancy.

God is merely a placeholder for what we do not know. — darthbarracuda

one could think of god as such, personally i rather think of god as the guide on exploring the unknown.

Religious acts, such as rituals and ceremonies, are superstitious and cast major doubt on the character of god. What kind of god not only allows, but wants and most often than not demands that people worship it in an irrational manner? — darthbarracuda

Nonsense, it's not god that wants such, it's (some) people that do. God allows you to make your own choice and face the consequences of your choice.

A perfect deity does not need to make anything. Why did god make the universe? — darthbarracuda

Why assume god made the universe?

A wager is voluntary, belief is not, so belief is not like a wager in an important respect. — Sapientia

Why assume belief is not voluntary. If someone tells me something, I can either choose to believe him/her, disbelief him/her or be agnostic about what that person said. Now unless you come for the predestination angle, rejecting all choises and thus even the existance of something to be voluntary, I don't see why you consider belief to be involuntary.

I appreciate the discussion about the origin of the word "God." That shows how a god functions in our lives. But merely invoking a god does not mean that a "god" exists, simply that someone has the idea that the god exists. On the other hand, if one was able to show a a strongly-evidenced causal connection between invoking a god and successful results from those invocations, that would be evidence that the god exists. — Michael Cunningham

How about a simple question: Do ideas exist?

The creator of the universe believed that his messaged would be most accurately accepted by inspiring a book that would be misinterpreted over centuries. — chatterbears

The bible doesn't mention the universe. nor does it mention anything God believes. The bible is a collection of books written by people on their interpretation how people should act.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? — chatterbears

Why assume God doesn't? I see God doing so all the time, it's just that many people refuse to listen.

I'd say that the use of negative emotions is that they can warn you about possible dangers. When handled appropriately they can help you prevent future suffering, and thereby help one with preventing an increase in negative emotions and help one with an increase in positive emotions. Hence negative emotions are not nessesarily a bad thing if acted upon proporly.