Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!inria!imag!lifia!phs From: phs@lifia.UUCP (Philippe Schnoebelen) Newsgroups: sci.bio Subject: Re: Stupidity about intelligence Message-ID: <2386@lifia.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Jun-87 08:13:14 EDT Article-I.D.: lifia.2386 Posted: Sun Jun 28 08:13:14 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 18:56:52 EDT References: <126@snark.UUCP> Reply-To: phs@lifia.UUCP (Philippe Schnoebelen) Followup-To: sci.bio Organization: LIFIA - IMAG, University of Grenoble, France Lines: 116 In article <126@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >In response to my posting on the heritability of intelligence, an irate >netter I shall spare embarrassment by leaving unnamed sent me a flame by >e-mail. It unintentionally illustrates the exact points I moved this >to talk.politics to see explored. I will quote it in its entirety here. As an aside, I must say that moving this to talk.politics is the surest way to replace scientific discussion by plain chaotic shouting. This is in contradiction with what you say about looking for rational thinking >I am well aware of Burt's fraud. You are making a completely unwarranted >assumption here. More recent studies (cited in _The_Mismeasure_Of_Man_) >have turned up the sorts of correlations I describe. Gould's attempt at >refutation *doesn't* challenge the recent data; it depends on a philosophical >criticism of factor analysis. [ Gould described how, during the last two centuries, all the "scientific theories" proving the inferiority of some races or social groups have all been built on top of false reasonnings and erroneous methodology. Of course, making a mistake when proving something does not mean that you were trying to prove something false, it just mean that you do not prove anything, thus Gould does not try to tell what is true and what is false, he just shows what is not proven, and it turns out that very little has been convincingly proven (I use "convincingly" because the notion of what is a proof is subjective, but let's not enter this debate). ] Now I think you are wrong when saying that Gould made "a philosophical criticism of factor analysis". It is the word "philosophical" which is wrong (and if you do not use it the way I understand it, then you will be misunderstood by almost all readers.) This word seems to imply that Gould does not believe what is "proved" by factor analysis, and that this is a "philosophical question" because one cannot force somebody into being convinced when he does not want to see the truth. This is misleading because it let you think that one can as well regard factor analysis as a convincing argument, that some people may believe in it while some (e.g. Gould) do not, and that there is no way to convince either side. On the contrary, and this is clear in Gould's presentation, factor analysis cannot prove anything, and it is a mistake to believe that it can. No scientific person can possibly believe that FACTOR ANALYSIS BY ITSELF can prove anything, and this has nothing to do with philosophy. >> I also doubt that anyone >>has a satisfactory definition of "intelligence" yet, let alone a method >>for testing it--your postings have cleverly ignored most of the controversy >>in this area as well. > >You should learn to pay more attention to what you read. I specified that >the 'intelligence' I was describing was a statistical composite of the >results of standardized acuity tests. Yes, I skipped over the details. >This was not because of any reluctance to admit or debate the issues >involved, just because it's been a while since I read anything in the area. Thus you clearly say that your definition of intelligence is merely a "statistical composite of results of tests". Now you should be aware that this definition has NOTHING TO DO with the common understanding of the word, that any result about "your" intelligence has (up to now) no established connection with the "usual informal notion of intelligence". Nevertheless, whatever you will further about "your" intelligence will inevitably be mistaken a referring to "usual" intelligence. This comes from your using a well known word with a new, different meaning. You must be aware of this and you are not allowed to blame people taking the word it in its usual sense (and thus your referring to "learning to pay more attention .." is rather arrogant). If you did not realize this, then it is too bad, while if you made this on purpose, it is dishonnest and not scientific at all. In that sense, entitling your article "Stupidity about Intelligence" is unfair because even though you do not explicitly mention whose side should be considered stupid, everybody will consider that you were referring to your opponent. >>I suppose intellectual honesty is too much to expect from a USENET >>poster--but it would make an entertaining change. > >I suppose a careful reading and reasoned reactions are much to expect from a >USENET reader--but it would make an entertaining change. I agree with your opponent. You think that he has misunderstood you, but this was inevitable given the words you use. His reaction is reasoned because your posting must be considered at best dangerously unclear, at worst dishonnest. > Read my lips: I am not a neo-Nazi, nor an apologist for >Cyril Burt and his sorry elitist ilk. I *am* a fascinated collector of Damned >Things -- facts that the sciences (for which I have enormous respect) >cannot acknowledge for political or social reasons. Biology is full of them. In that case, you should ask yourself why (almost) everybody misunderstand you. The problem is with the way you say things. Don't ask people to abstract from it, you know that it is impossible. Just saying "I am not a neo-Nazi ..." cannot be sufficient. >Can you say 'different species'? > >There. I'll bet you're reacting to that as though I'd written 'inferior >species'. Sigh. That's why that fact is a Damned Thing. Some people never >learn... Clearly you are conscious about the fact that it is dangerous to say what you say, ... and though you say it. Maybe you think this is heroic ? I just think it is immature. -- Philippe SCHNOEBELEN, LIFIA - INPG, UUCP : phs@lifia.imag.fr 46, Avenue Felix VIALLET 38000 Grenoble, FRANCE "Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about."