I’m also arguing for that being wrong. I also said that it’s more complex than temperature and didn’t say it was an exact measurement (temperature isn’t either, just closer). The example with the temperature goes like this.
Pseudoscience says that 90 IQ is stupid and water at -20°C is frozen. Science says those numbers don’t make sense out of context. -20 is a gas when there’s less pressure and 90 is extraordinary when the person previously scored 50.
To resay my final point from the previous comment. If we want to study cognitive ability, we need to measure it. IQ is a messy and imprecise measurement, but it’s better than nothing.
There are definitely many limitations to what IQ can tell us, and it absolutely cannot be used as a universal scale, but it is repeatable and has generated accurate predictions which is what science is all about. Not as accurate as predictions using temperature, but still useful. Including studies like this demonstrating that what we think of as intelligence is more nurture than nature. We can take the information with a grain of salt, it’s still information.
but it is repeatable and has generated accurate predictions which is what science is all about.
No. If I program a program that equates 1+1=3 in a predictable manner, and many other wrong calculations, so we don’t understand its inner workings. But still the prediction would be the same with this program. That does not mean its correct. IQ tests are not good indications of if someone is more intelligent than someone else. And no, they do not generate accurate predictions, that’s not even what an IQ test is for.
I’m also arguing for that being wrong. I also said that it’s more complex than temperature and didn’t say it was an exact measurement (temperature isn’t either, just closer). The example with the temperature goes like this.
Pseudoscience says that 90 IQ is stupid and water at -20°C is frozen. Science says those numbers don’t make sense out of context. -20 is a gas when there’s less pressure and 90 is extraordinary when the person previously scored 50.
To resay my final point from the previous comment. If we want to study cognitive ability, we need to measure it. IQ is a messy and imprecise measurement, but it’s better than nothing.
I argue having wrong measurement (or something you think can be measured and compared to another humans IQ) is worse than nothing.
There are definitely many limitations to what IQ can tell us, and it absolutely cannot be used as a universal scale, but it is repeatable and has generated accurate predictions which is what science is all about. Not as accurate as predictions using temperature, but still useful. Including studies like this demonstrating that what we think of as intelligence is more nurture than nature. We can take the information with a grain of salt, it’s still information.
No. If I program a program that equates 1+1=3 in a predictable manner, and many other wrong calculations, so we don’t understand its inner workings. But still the prediction would be the same with this program. That does not mean its correct. IQ tests are not good indications of if someone is more intelligent than someone else. And no, they do not generate accurate predictions, that’s not even what an IQ test is for.
You’re displaying an ignorance on how science works. Repeatability and predictions are massively important to the scientific method.
And you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I’m saying.
And I’m not saying that IQ tells you if someone is more intelligent than someone else. (it doesn’t)