Philosophical Vegan Forum

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.

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?

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.

brimstoneSalad 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?

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 morality

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.

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

Will check these threads out when I get home!

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:33 pm Are all definitions of all words equally credible?

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).

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'll concede this.

I'm sure I still have a lot to learn about this, so I'll be reading the threads you suggested.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pm My question is; how do we know that the criteria we are testing for accurately encompass the scope of one's intelligence?

It's like any metric, BMI, WC, LDL, etc. it's an imperfect measurement, but a useful one that's correct for the vast majority and is very meaningfully correlated with a number of important societal issues.
It's measuring intelligence indirectly, and modern tests do a remarkably good job (not that it couldn't be improved upon).

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmIQ tests have been historically criticized for being biased and not testing for creativity and spontaneity.

The relationship is complex, but IQ is very important to creativity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

It's a requirement, but not a guarantor.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmAnd 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.

How much higher? That's an important variable to take into account when people make claims about racial intelligence.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmAren't IQ tests supposed to take into account these variables?

Depends on the test administrator.
Despite variables like that, IQ is a very good predictor of many things.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmMorality does not exist in nature. It cannot be studied, measured, or observed.

Neither do numbers. Is math subjective?

Harm does exist, interests exist; they can be studied, measured, and observed objectively.
If morality is a way of describing our choices with respect to consequences in terms of the fulfillment of violation of others' interests, and assessing character based on propensity to those ends, it's perfectly objective.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmIt is contingent on a subjective being to invent and describe it. Humans invent morality

Invent or discover? And what is the relevance of that?
Was mathematics invented or discovered?

There's a distinction between making up an arbitrary notion, and deriving something objective. I'm not so sure invention/discovery captures that well, though by connotation it's better to say discover.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmI'd argue mathematics is based on our subjective metaphysical assumptions,

How are those subjective?
Are they based on feelings or whim?

While there are assumptions underlying coherent thought, I don't see how you can call them subjective: they are questions of fact of reality, and more importantly they are non-arbitrary -- there are not alternatives we are randomly deciding between.

Does 1 and 1 actually equal 2? When we apply it to physics with a margin of error, yes. And there's no other math on offer that results in coherent findings.
The same with the laws of thought; they deal with matters of fact regarding the underlying reality of which there are no alternatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

They are perhaps "assumptions" in the strictest sense but they are necessary assumptions, not merely guesses (which we could regard perhaps as having some subjective inclination, if we prefer one guess over another). If there's anything subjective to that at all, then everything is subjective and "subjective" has no meaning.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pmDisclaimer; 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'm glad to hear it. I know I make a pretty hard sell, but I hope I'm answering your questions well.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pm 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.

The problem there is that if the assumptions are subjective, somebody else can just as easily make entirely different assumptions and have equal claim to being moral.

If somebody can not equally claim that morality is about maximizing paperclips in the universe, or can not equally claim the most moral thing is to gratify their own hedonistic urges, then those assumptions are not subjective ones. If they can equally claim that, then that's ultimately relativism.

Slightly irrelevant, but I have a quick question about IQ.
I heard that the average IQ is increasing, since the modern IQ tests have increased in difficulty compared to when they were first created. The average is still 100, but having 100 today is like having 115 back then, if you know what I mean.
So is the average population actually getting smarter? Or were people just really stupid back then?

Oh yeah, and what about liberal arts? Are those particularly useful degrees?

Red wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:28 pm Slightly irrelevant, but I have a quick question about IQ.
I heard that the average IQ is increasing, since the modern IQ tests have increased in difficulty compared to when they were first created. The average is still 100, but having 100 today is like having 115 back then, if you know what I mean.
So is the average population actually getting smarter? Or were people just really stupid back then?

Oh yeah, and what about liberal arts? Are those particularly useful degrees?

If you mean studying things such as literature, philosophy, language, arts, and political science, no, liberal arts degrees aren't useful in terms of getting a job.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:45 pm If you mean studying things such as literature, philosophy, language, arts, and political science, no, liberal arts degrees aren't useful in terms of getting a job.

Sweet! Now I have extra ammunition to use against liberals!
All joking aside, I'll probably get a minor in philosophy, and maybe history. How about you ol' chappette?

Red wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:25 pm

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:45 pm If you mean studying things such as literature, philosophy, language, arts, and political science, no, liberal arts degrees aren't useful in terms of getting a job.

Sweet! Now I have extra ammunition to use against liberals!
All joking aside, I'll probably get a minor in philosophy, and maybe history. How about you ol' chappette?

No clue. If I was choosing based on interest, I would major in poli sci and/or environmental science, and minor in history and/or econ or stats.