un691cs at genius.embnet.dkfz-heidelberg.de
Mon Dec 5 12:44:50 EST 1994
some stuff deleted, but toby bradshaw wrote:
> Not at all. What it means is that when statements like "heritability
> is only useful for selection" are posted, those statements will
> be challenged.
> > If person X says that IQ tests are bad to measure intelligence
> > AND that intelligence /race connections are difficult to interpret
> > because of that, you go ahead and say that intelligence is
> > measurable anyway.
> I said components of itelligence are measurable in principle. Do
> you believe they're not? Here's an example. In a full-sib human
> family there are 10 children. One has Down's syndrome. By giving
> a written test to each child at age 14, can you determine which one
> is afflicted? Is this a measure of a component of intelligence?
what kind of written test ? that's the point isn't it ? The paragraph
above is typical for what you keep on saying. You have no idea what
itteligence look like, but apparently, you have a written test that
will be able to measure it anyway ! Before going ahead testing some-thing,
you should have a clear idea about what you are testing.
> > But you admit that you even haven't got a hypothesis of what
> > intelligence actually is !
> So what? If I wanted to work on human genetics I would (and have).
> I have no hypothesis for why American money is green, either, but
> I would be willing to argue with someone who says the color is not
the problem with examples is that they are usually slightly different
than what one is discussing........ The proper example in this case
would be "what is green " (like what is intelligence). You would have
to know the color (a definition in nanometers f.i.) to be able to
measure it !
> > May I suggest something ? Let's saty scientific and try to solve
> > the problem from the beginning.
> > 1. Try to define tomato yield and intelligence
> Tomato yield depends on the intended use of the tomato (i.e., fresh
> or processed). Tomatoes aren't intelligent, so defining tomato
> intelligence is a waste of time :)
sorry, my poor english. naturally I meant intelligence (of people)
and tomato yield
> > 2. How do you suggest to measure both
> I don't have a suggestion for either.
no comment, speaks for itself.
> > 3. what is your hypothesis about both
> The null hypothesis in both cases is that there is no genetic variance.
> > 4. Do you think both measurements will be similar/different
> What do you mean?
Will it be more difficult to measure tomato yield then it will
be to measure human intelligence ? I guess you will say that
you don't know or don't care
> > 5. What will be the social and scientific implications of my
> > conclusions
> Social conclusions -- irrelevant.
> Scientific conclusions -- that's what experiments are for.
> > 6. Will my conclusions have effects on society, and, in that
> > light, will they stand up to extreme scrutiny ?
> Their effects on society do not concern me. Whether they stand up
> to scientific scrutiny does concern me.
Up to now you didn't show any responsibility supporting your latter
remark ! You are not interested in how to define intelligence, yet
you are absolutely sure that you can measure it. And on top of
that you say that you do not care how society might react to
this kind of research.
I think it is not very useful to continue this discussion, but you may
reply if necessary. Perhaps you could suggest in detail how you would
measure intelligence ?
More information about the Bioforum