I sort of agree with you. My question is; how do we know that the criteria we are testing for accurately encompass the scope of one's intelligence? IQ tests have been historically criticized for being biased and not testing for creativity and spontaneity. Can the scope one's intelligence be accurately assigned to a numeric value? I'm not saying they're totally useless, but I'm also not convinced they can accurately describe how intelligent a person is. And in some cases, results can lead to stereotype threat. Blacks are shown to perform lower on IQ tests if they are told it is an IQ test. Studies have also shown women perform worse on math aptitude tests for similar reasons. Aren't IQ tests supposed to take into account these variables? Do blacks suddenly become less intelligent if they're being told that they're taking an IQ test?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:33 pm IQ tests are fine, the problem is when people try to apply it beyond the individual level to society, or make broader claims because there are many variables that affect IQ (like lead in the water or paint chips in low income housing).
There are too many forces that depress the IQs of low income populations to make any useful claims when those huge confounding variables can't be reliably controlled for.
Again, not saying they're totally useless, I'm just saying we should regard them with a healthy dose of skepticism. I'm also aware that cognitive scientists can use IQ test results to do great work for children and adults suffering from a whole host of learning and intellectual disabilities.
Of course, Red might not agree that they should be called scientists, lol.
I see "subjective" as a thing or idea that is unique to one's own experiences. It is dependent on the subject's unique attitudes and feelings. Morality does not exist in nature. It cannot be studied, measured, or observed. It is contingent on a subjective being to invent and describe it. Humans invent moralitybrimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:33 pm What do you think "subjective" means? Are shapes subjective, is a circle or square subjective? Is math subjective?
No, I do not think mathematics is subjective. I'd argue mathematics is based on our subjective metaphysical assumptions, but after the assumptions have been made, we can speak objectively about mathematics and logic. A circle is is a closed shape with an angle of 360 degrees. Now that I've made assumptions about the concept of a circle, I can now speak factually about it. The criteria would still exist regardless of if I'm present to consider it.
Disclaimer; I'm no philosopher or mathematician, so if I'm wrong, enlighten me. I'm aware of my own limited understanding of philosophy and open to changing my mind.
I'd also like to add that I'm not a moral relativist. I do not believe morality is relative, or that all moral systems are equal. I believe that the assumptions we make about morality are subjective, but after it has been defined I can declare that murder (not out of self-defense) is objectively bad.
Will check these threads out when I get home!brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:33 pm Lesswrong has some good discussion on different definitions:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/5u2/pluralistic_moral_reductionism/
I addressed one of the subjective-objective dichotomies here and showed how it's not useful:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3641&start=10#p36141
Not necessarily. Some vegans believe meat is murder, which is correct under certain definitions. However, this still ignores the most commonly accepted definition of the word, which is implies legality. And animals are not yet recognized as legal individuals by the law. Saying meat is murder is [technically] correct, but can convolute the conversation and confuse people (or turn them away).
I'll concede this.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:33 pm Some definitions of some words are unhelpful, and do not comport with the teleology of the word.
I'm sure I still have a lot to learn about this, so I'll be reading the threads you suggested.