Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

IQ and ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Uncommon Descent member AussieID brought up the point in my previous article that belief in God tends to fall off with increasing IQ. I countered with the point that the very highest IQs tend to come back around, not full circle to a belief in a personal God (such as the God of Abraham), but to a belief in a designed universe which is more or less categorized as “deism”. I offered examples of famous high IQ deists such as Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, and even Antony Flew.

Curious, and uncertain how strong the correlation is between high genius and deism, I googled around a bit and stumbled upon Christopher Michael Langan who has been billed by the media, including 20/20, as the smartest man in America with a measured IQ of 195. His life is both surprising and fascinating in many ways.

However, the biggest surprise of all was that Mr. Langan is an IDist!

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID), a professional society which promotes intelligent design, and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society’s online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002. Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID’s Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference. In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design, edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.

Asked about creationism, Langan has said:

“I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.”

Langan has said he does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he “can’t afford to let [his] logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma.” He calls himself “a respecter of all faiths, among peoples everywhere.”

Interesting video interview here. Watch all three segments. I wasn’t bothered by any of it, found much of it amusing, but I suspect it will stir up a lot of animosity on both sides of the “culture war” (which likely means he’s on the right track). Try to keep in mind this guy is an ISCID fellow along with Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Guiellermo Gonzalez, Forrest Mims, Jay Richards, Phil Skell, Rick Sternberg, and many others in the ID movement.

Comments
No worries Frost. I feel that the Multiverse Theory and Darwinism are incompatable with Abrahamic Monotheism. Personally, I am a supporter of ID. I tend to lean towards and anti common descent stance like Dr. Dembski.PannenbergOmega
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
*** I should correct my post above by saying that I did not mean to imply that you Pannen were sugesting that multiverse is the only route for agnostics and atheists. After reading you post again- I stand corrected- but my point still stands without the critical aim.Frost122585
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Pannen said,
"Although, I believe in a real designer and I reject the Multiverse hypothesis."
Well you see it was Lin Yutang the great agnostic/atheist Chinese philosopher and academic (who wrote the importance of living) that said "the true atheist is not concerned with eliminating religion or whether there actually is or is not a good. The true atheist goes though his life daily without ever even giving it a thought." ^ or something along those line. Think a bout that quote and how a true atheist to Lin is one that isn't hell bent on eliminating God but in fact doesn't attach any meaning or significance to the idea of God at all. Then think about how many Americans (and people in general) would probably fall into that category of atheist by Lin's definition. My point here is that design is not religion and does not even imply a "designer" per se. The "er" part is secondary to the obvious truth of design. Now my critique of what you wrote is the fact that multiverse is not the only other possibility for agnostics and atheists- or even "secular believes in a Designer" (which is also possible under a deistic modern interpretation)- but there is also the option to just not have a theory. My brother says he thinks what ever science discovers is the only truth. That is if there is not evidence of multiverses (and there isn't) then there is no reason to believe in them. Therefore my brother concludes that there is NO explanation for the current state of things in all of their complexity and specify and this IS his explanation for life's arrival. That is some agnostics think there is no explanation because there isn't one. We live in a universe that is only ineffable. That is all we can know because as far as we can tell that is all there is. I beg to differ.Frost122585
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Rude says, It takes all kinds to make a world. As Thomas Sowell (wish I could find a quote) likes to ask, can one person or a small clique of experts know more than millions upon millions of people, brilliant people and ordinary people all cooperating freely to make this big world work? The answer is actually, yes. One person who know not to jump off a bridge knows infinitely more than those millions who do jump- for the simple reason that they are dead. Now as for the main thrust of your post which is "can we, should we, separate the artist from the person" or can we compartmentalize the expert into his good and bad arenas? The answer is, in a vacuum, yes (though in the real world's social society it's much more difficult). We can say he’s good at physics and an idiot when it comes to politics or ethics etc. But the one and single conceptual "person" still remains and it is import that we first define "the tent" before opening the flood gates. I am a registered republican of the conservative branch and we can try and be a big tent all we want but if at the end of the day we compromise the quality of the tent for the quantity that it covers- then we have lost our reason and our way. So its important to explicitly define parameters to the best of our abilities. Otherwise the old adage about one bad apple takes hold, permeates and destroys the whole village. It doesn't take a village to think, but, a village that thinks together can fail to think at all if it embraces the utter lunacy of even one single solitary ignorant idea.Frost122585
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
"Whether or not he thought the design of life had an actual designer behind it, I am at the current moment, not sure." I think Professor Harvey C. Mansfield would agree with you. Although, I believe in a real designer and I reject the Multiverse hypothesis.PannenbergOmega
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
^I concurFrost122585
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
As far as I can see Leo was a Catholic (and probably a better one than Ken Miller)tribune7
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
I don’t know what Leo was, but I will because I have a whole bunch of his personal writings. I can say this he was clearly a staunch believer in design based on the psychological implications of the exerts that I have read. But then again most of the great geniuses were very design oriented- Newton, Leibniz, Einstein, Franklin, etc- Whether or not he thought the design of life had an actual designer behind it, I am at the current moment, not sure.Frost122585
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Hmm.. Leonardo da Vinci a Deist? I read elsewhere that he was (like many Renaissance thinkers) heavily influenced by Neoplatonism.PannenbergOmega
June 29, 2008
June
06
Jun
29
29
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
#35 Rude So I wouldn’t be too hard on Chris Langan. He’s like Einstein. Some of his ideas are pretty stupid—let’s call them what they are. They may be reasoned from false premises or reflect just plain old ignorance (you can be brilliant and ignorant). But he’s on a farm in Missouri, not in the academy and not in Congress. And he’s not wrong in everything. After all you're right and: There’s room for him in ID’s Big Tent. Right, and after your comment I've realized that his involvment is quite useful for ID. After all, if more and more non-theists do agree on ID ideas this disprove more and morethe false equation ID=biblical creationismkairos
June 28, 2008
June
06
Jun
28
28
2008
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Rude, Great post!tribune7
June 27, 2008
June
06
Jun
27
27
2008
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Having put in about 20 years of hard, blue colar labor (farm, forest, factory …) and about the same in academe (linguistics), I've seen genius and stupidity thrive in both camps. But whereas the two worlds share the same human foibles and virtues there are differences. In the blue colar world you can be a crack pot on the side, you can weld and still be a flying saucer buff, you can corral cattle and still believe in astrology, you can spread manure and still be a conspiracist. But if one’s politics and religion don’t matter much in the blue colar world, such is not the case in the academy. The university is not very hospitable to a diversity of views. The reason, perhaps, is that if you’re paid for your wisdom you’d better not be a heretic. Yes, you can argue trivia (I’ve never seen folks more bitter over trivialities), but on the big stuff you’d better not speak your mind if your opinions are not the correct ones. This may have its value, but when the academy errs it threatens us all. The village can tolerate its atheist, but when the whole village becomes atheist, woe to that village! (talking biblical here) And that’s pretty much what has happened to the academy. And then there’s the fact that academics, experts, scientists (like celebrities) are tempted to think their expertise translates into a broader wisdom—-thus Einstein,
... like many great scientists, when he wandered afield — in his case, from physics to metaphysics — he easily got lost. ... ... Take his political philosophy. The thinker who presented the world with the subtle brilliance of the General and Special Theories of Relativity was a resolute socialist, considering capitalism to be “a source of evil.” He lobbied to end American nuclear testing and advocated supplying the United Nations with nuclear weapons. He insisted that a Marxist be appointed the president of a university to which he was to lend his name. (And when his partner in the enterprise objected, Einstein refused to be associated with the school, which became Brandeis University.)
So I wouldn’t be too hard on Chris Langan. He’s like Einstein. Some of his ideas are pretty stupid—let’s call them what they are. They may be reasoned from false premises or reflect just plain old ignorance (you can be brilliant and ignorant). But he’s on a farm in Missouri, not in the academy and not in Congress. And he’s not wrong in everything. There’s room for him in ID’s Big Tent. It takes all kinds to make a world. As Thomas Sowell (wish I could find a quote) likes to ask, can one person or a small clique of experts know more than millions upon millions of people, brilliant people and ordinary people all cooperating freely to make this big world work? Many academics seem to think so.Rude
June 27, 2008
June
06
Jun
27
27
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
#30 GilDodgen I think this is enough. Langan is a kook who is suffering from delusions of grandeur, or at least from delusions of adequacy. Thanks for the citation; I completely agree on your opinion of L. He's precisely the living proof that men can be desperately stupid just when they think to be very smart and closer to "absolute truth"kairos
June 27, 2008
June
06
Jun
27
27
2008
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
Gil I was wondering when someone was going to watch the videos. I figured the first person who did would say something about his eugenics proposal. That was interesting and unexpected. Francis Galton is estimated by some to have had an IQ near Langan's and Galton is like the father of the modern eugenics movement. Super geniuses tend to have problems relating to normal people and this is probably one common manifestation of it. To play well with others you have to be able to think and feel as they do or at least some close proximity to it. He's not a kook but he seems different - not wired the same mentally OR emotionally - it could be that the part of the brain in normal people used to relate with others is conscripted instead for intellectual chores (no free lunches). Or it could be affected just to keep people from getting too close - it appears to be sociopathic either way. I like him because he makes me look like a humble well adjusted guy in comparison! I'm pretty sure he's a high genius though. 20/20 hired an expert to verify the claim. There's no way to get a high score on those tests except to have the mental ability to work the problems. I'm not sure if he's aware of how arrogant he comes off but I'm pretty sure he doesn't care. The theory of everything he's got is like who cares if it's closer to the absolute truth than anything else. That absolute truth and $3 will get a small latte at Starbucks. It's too distant from anything practical to bother dallying with - 56 pages of wool gathering - might as well be a theory of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin. In any case I was really surprised by the association with ARN - the last place he'd find he could fit in would be with evangelical Christians. DaveScot
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
It is reasonable to suppose that the College of Cardinals has a very high average IQ.Vladimir Krondan
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Dave, P.S.:
Did a really smart kid make you look bad in grammar school or something? Fess up.
Actually, I graduated as valedictorian in high school with the only perfect grade point average and played the first movement of the Rachmaninoff Second Piano Concerto for the graduation ceremony. I was the quintessential nerd who never fit in, especially with the "in crowd." Your presumption is precisely backwards.GilDodgen
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Dave, I don't hate Langan. He has a high IQ, but I think he is a colossal, arrogant fool. The deification of intellect is odious. From the interview:
We don't need faith any more. It's extraneous, irrelevant. I am closer to absolute truth than any man has been before me. Interviewer: "Say you had the opportunity to run the world, how would you do it?" Langan: "A Manhattan project for birth control. Implant it in all children at age 10. It would solve the population problem and enable us to perform a benign form of eugenics... People who wanted to have children could apply to make sure they had no diseases... We have to do it through genetic engineering or only let the fit breed... People have to be trained not to abuse their freedom... I'd be perfectly willing to do this training myself. Just put me in charge. Interviewer: "Could you provide such a framework?" (In reference to Langan's statement about the need for a new Messianic figure.) Langan: "Yes I could. I've already done so... Faith is dead; people no longer have faith in anything, so we're going to have to make logic do where faith once stood."
I think this is enough. Langan is a kook who is suffering from delusions of grandeur, or at least from delusions of adequacy.GilDodgen
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Well - there are some humans that are very intelligent stupid people? The natural man/mind still CAN NOT perceive the things of the Spirit. The idea that intelligent people could be the ones to fix the planet is readily falsifiable. "They" have been amongst us for some time now and still haven't been able or smart enough to get er done!alan
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
A few comments: (1) Dave (#23): "IQ in my opinion mostly measures speed of thought and ability to hold many interrelated thoughts simultaneously." That sounds about right. It also explains why IQ is irrelevant to religious belief. The concept of God is supposed to be a simple one, as God is the ultimate unifying explanation of reality. If someone asked me to define what I meant by "God" in one sentence, I would simply say: "God is a fully integrated personal being whose nature it is to know and love perfectly." You don't need to think quickly or hold many inter-related thoughts in your head to get a basic idea like that. I hold that only a Being like that could explain why we are here and why the universe (which is neither personal nor fullly integrated) exists. As I am finite, mortal and hence vulnerable to disintegration, I have no idea HOW God could know or loves in a perfectly integrated way. I only know that in our everyday life we simply assume that the world will continue to "make sense" (i.e. remain intelligible) from one moment to the next. Science - and for that matter, ethical discourse - would be impossible without such an assumption. (If everything kept falling apart or turning into a "buzzing, blooming chaos" then we could not do experiments, or re-identify the bearers of moral rights.) However, science cannot explain what science presupposes. (2) On Einstein's religion, readers might like to have a look at this link: http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html An excerpt: "Einstein's speculation about religion had its roots in the pantheism of the Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who regarded the universe as a mixture of mind and matter-but not a Cartesian dualism. He identified the order of the universe with the will of its inherent God (so-called). Einstein admitted, 'My conception of God is an emotional conviction of a superior intelligence manifest in the material world.' In the spirit of Psalm 139 he regarded God as immanent-but not transcendent. He did not 'believe in a God who cares for the well-being and the moral doings of human beings.'" The article also provides documentary evidence that Einstein did not view himself as an atheist. (3) I am SLOWLY digesting Christopher Langan's ISCID article at http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf, so I apologize if I am mis-representing the man. My impression is that Langan's philosophy of God has much in common with Spinoza's. Langan also seems to be arguing that the world somehow explains itself, in a kind of closed causal loop. On his Website (Introduction to the CTMU at http://www.ctmu.org/) Langan rejects talk of the universe as an object, at the outset: "The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no 'external reality' (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been 'created'." To my mind, this line of argumentation seems mistaken on four counts. First, the fact that we cannot situate the cosmos within a space and time external to it does not prove that it is not an object. The universe can still be viewed as an object, but one that comprises all of space and time instead of being situated within them. Second, anything can be viewed as an object if it has properties. Now, the spatio-temporal universe, when considered as a whole, has properties. Scientific laws describe some of these properties. However, this universe (or cosmos) is radically contingent: it can easily be conceived as ceasing to exist, along with all its properties (scientific laws). (Robert Koons argues more rigorously for the complete contingency of the cosmos in his article, "A New Look at the Cosmological Argument" at the ARN Website, http://www.arn.org/docs/koons/cosmo.pdf .) Third, I would argue that the concept of a personal Being who created the cosmos, and whose NATURE is to know and love perfectly is the only concept that could serve to guarantee that the cosmos will make sense - i.e. that we can meaningfully engage in scientific and moral discourse over an extended period of time, without the world falling apart on us in the meantime. Fourth, the God of Einstein and Langan was definitely NOT a loving God. I would suggest that a Being who can love is more perfectly integrated (and intelligent) than one who cannot. Finally, it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that "[b]ecause the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no 'external reality' (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been 'created'." If you define the universe to include "all that is real" then of course (ex nihilo) creation is ruled out by definition. However, we could define it to include all objects that are bound together by spatio-temporal connections. Using that definition, the notion of the creation of the universe seems much more plausible. (4) Langan professes to believe that in some sense, we are all equal. I would like to ask: in what sense does he think we are equal? And how does this belief sit with his claim that highly intelligent people are more highly evolved than the rest of us poor mortals? For religious people, the problem is simple. We are all equal, because we all have human souls. The kinds of differences measured in human intelligence testing (speed and the ability to hold many inter-related thoughts at once) are not essential differences, but accidental ones. They don't matter much. (6) Regarding the religion of the most influential (NOT intelligent) people in history, the Web page http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html (Religious Affiliation of History's 100 Most Influential People) contains a wealth of fascinating information. However, the Webmaster's comments are well worth reading: the findings should not be taken too seriously. (7) Wikipedia has an interesting little article called "Religiosity and intelligence" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence Although the article lists surveys which purport to show that belief in God declines as IQ rises, the article is honest enough to include contrary findings. For example: (a) In Australia, 23% of Christian church attenders have earned a university or postgraduate degree, whereas the figure for the general population is 13%; (b) In the US, religious behavior also increases with education level, according to raw data from the 2004 General Social Survey, which indicates that 30.4% of those with a graduate degree attend religious services weekly or more, a statistically significant proportion, higher than any lesser educated group; and (c) Studies of Mormons in the US also display a high positive correlation between education levels and religiosity. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary school education attend church regularly. By contrast, 76% of Mormon college graduates attend church regularly and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attend church regularly. (This study did not control for age or track apostasy over time.) Make of that what you will.vjtorley
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Materialists define personhood—there’s no human rights anymore, only person rights—on the basis of intelligence and belief in Darwin. Wonder what they think of Chris Langan.Rude
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Gil, A few points. 1. If Mother Teresa is the standard we are all going to fall short. 2. I betcha she wouldn't have done that badly on an IQ test. 3. You are absolutely right about talents but don't be so quick to judge that Langan is squandering his. Consider the Longshoreman Philosopher, Eric Hoffer.
Hoffer also took solace in being an outcast, believing that the outcasts have always been the pioneers of society. He did not consider himself an "intellectual", and scorned the term as descriptive of the allegedly anti-American academics of the West. He believed academics craved power but were denied it in the democratic countries of the West (though not in totalitarian countries, which Hoffer understood to be an intellectual's dream). Instead, Hoffer believed academics chose to bite the hand that fed them in their quest for power and influence.
tribune7
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Dave, Gil will answer about his real thought. For myself what I've perceived in his statement is not at all a bad judgement (or a whichever hostility for that matter) towards a person like L. who holds an outstanding IQ. Instead i've seen the perception that in this time intelligence is more and more seen as an idol. Cetainly I will not consider a bad thing what is an important gift for a person but we should always keep in mind that it would be a tragedy for humanity if intelligence was all that is worth to find in a person. And let us not forget that also minor chemical diseases in the brain can suddendly keep it away (sse the Paul's words).kairos
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Gil I’ll choose Mother Teresa over Chris Langan any day. Choose for what? If you preferred Mother Teresa over Langan for an engineering position I'd fire you for gross incompetence. I don’t give a damn about IQ. Really. A rather strange attitude for someone who makes a living in an engineering profession where IQ is a very important factor in job performance. Langan really brings out the hate in people. It seemed to start with his stepfather who was the first to abuse him for being so smart. Why do YOU hate him, Gil? Your emotional outburst is more of a comment about you than it is about Langan. Did a really smart kid make you look bad in grammar school or something? Fess up. Langan comments in the interview that the really smart kids tend to be abused by the less intellectually gifted. That's why he became a weight lifter - so he didn't have to put up with that kind of abuse. That's why I became a United States Marine as fas as that goes so I can really identify with Langan here. What's wrong with YOU that you treat people like Langan the way you obviously do? Not much in the way of Christian charity there, either. You should probably work on that. DaveScot
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
AvonWatches I was thinking what ‘type’ of intelligence the IQ scores measure - problem solving, logic, etc? Does it factor in, say, ‘humanities’ intelligence (e.g. english, prose, etc)? It doesn't measure artistic skill if that's what you're asking but most of the great composers, painters, sculptors, and authors have remarkably high IQs so there's probably some significant correlation. IQ in my opinion mostly measures speed of thought and ability to hold many interrelated thoughts simultaneously. This would seem to have some technical usefulness in the arts - it would enable a sculptor to better visualize the final product and the intermediate steps to get to it but it does nothing at all to help with hand/eye coordination or visual acuity which also seems important for that kind of artistic performance. For a composer it probably helps in the speed in which potential composition can be imagined and evaluated in the mind's eye but it won't help someone with a so-called tin ear and it won't fix color blindness for a painter or give him a wide emotional depth of experience to translate to the artistic medium. But still, most of the greats in all the arts are high IQ individuals. Leonardo da Vinci, arguably the smartest human that ever lived, is billed as a universal genius - he was a master of both the arts and sciences. It takes a lot more than raw brain power though to be productive. Langan opens and closes the video interview by reminding us that as smart as he is by the established metrics of intelligence he's still just a bouncer in a nightclub. Motivation, aspiration, things you love to do, things you hate to do, mental and physical health, emotional stability, all these factor into the total person. In Langan's case the total person is not very accomplished and a great waste of intellect. Properly channeled he might have found the cure for cancer or invented a real cold fusion reactor or some other great and lasting contribution to humanity but noooooo... he works in a bar. But hey, it's his life and if he's happy with it who am I to be his judge?DaveScot
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
#16 GilDodgen I don’t give a damn about IQ. I’ll choose Mother Teresa over Chris Langan any day. Chris squandered his talents and Teresa did not. I believe that there is some ancient wisdom on this subject, called the parable of the talents. That's right. And every time I see myself to take too much into account intelligence I re-read 1 Cor. 13,1-13, especially (KJV): "8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away."kairos
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
mentok That statement disqualifies him as the smartest man alive, or even as a very smart man period. I knew Langan was going to cause all kinds of offense. Disqualifying him as being very smart on the basis of one brief statement made in an TV talk show interview is not exactly rigorous. I'm sure in a more lengthy response he'd qualify that statement as closer to the truth than anyone else he was aware of and I bet he's aware of all the major philosophers. Whether the statement is true or not is probably indeterminable. He's not stupid and you aren't going to discount him that easily.DaveScot
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
Joel Invariably the people who bother to complain about test scores are people who don't do well on them. In any case, I merely wanted to point out that IQ is indeed something that is used to measure academic potential, it has been used for decades, and is still used today. If it's such an unreliable indicator perhaps you could explain why it is still relied upon. Maybe you could even write a paper about it and present it to one of your professors for class credit. But you're going to need to clean up your logic first. You said of someone who can post a high SAT score "but it shows he lacks wisdom and the ability to think for himself". It shows nothing of the kind. A person who posts a high SAT score might still be extremely creative or be very lacking in creativity. It's not an art test. However it IS a logic test and your display of illogic just now is a pretty good indicator that your SAT score was not exactly Ivy League. DaveScot
June 26, 2008
June
06
Jun
26
26
2008
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
But anyway, since we are talking about opinions of high-IQ/intelligent people towards ID, does anyone know what the Chess Grandmasters think? Bobby Fischer would probably be on our side. But, would we want him?tribune7
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
He says "I am closer to absolute truth then any man has been before me" That statement disqualifies him as the smartest man alive, or even as a very smart man period. How can you know what all humans throughout history have known about "absolute truth"? You cannot. That statement is so far off the mark I am surprised any even mildly intelligent person would make that claim. If he actually was aware of "absolute truth" then he would never make such an errant statement. What is intelligence anyways? It occurs in the mind that much we know. It has to be based on memory to one degree or another because memory is how the mind is able to contextualize reality. How does memory function? It cannot be biologically based because there are no cells which can perceive, understand, read, nor store thought. Thought is always in a language. Cells would need to be able to understand languages, grammars, lexicons, etc, in order to be able to even begin to deal with how our memory functions in reality. Cells cannot do that. They cannot read nor understand thought. Yet memory functions, enabling intelligence. Until someone understands this, understands how the mind functions based upon memory being given to us through a non-biological intelligent process, then any claim to knowing "absolute truth" is without merit. Gnothi Seauton - is the first stage of understanding actual Absolute Truth.mentok
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Slightly off, perhaps slightly on-topic. I was thinking what 'type' of intelligence the IQ scores measure - problem solving, logic, etc? Does it factor in, say, 'humanities' intelligence (e.g. english, prose, etc)? But anyway, since we are talking about opinions of high-IQ/intelligent people towards ID, does anyone know what the Chess Grandmasters think? I would assume that people that can see 50+ moves ahead on the board would be good at systematic and logical analysis, pattern recognition, design recognition, etc. Anyone know?Avonwatches
June 25, 2008
June
06
Jun
25
25
2008
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply