Re: DNA pioneer James Watson suspended in farcical race row


DK:-
Hold your emotions though. There is nothing emotional in simple
fact that one guy can figure out 10 puzzles in 1 hour 95% of the
time and the other one can only manage 2 and even then only 50%
of the time.

JE:-
But the very same person may not be able to build a cupboard, sing, run a
business, write a book, juggle 10 plates in the air while standing on
tightrope...

I think you forgot to include distance cherry pit spitting world record
holder in the list of examples.

JE:-
No, he/she would be included in any standardized physical skills test which
will form a part of any valid intelligence test. Are you arguing that you
do not need a brain to be good at sport?

I did point out (in the part of my reply that you deleted) that GENERALLY,
intelligence is comprised of inductive and deductive skills. Do you realise
that modern epistemology simply deletes induction? What then is left to even
be tested ? Just DEDUCTION. If you look at any IQ test you may notice that
the deduction is 99% of it. IOW pin headed intelligence is attempting to
remake the word in its own image...

What is the use of any of that if you are in the middle of the Australian
desert with nothing but your underpants?

Whatever. I asked that you ponder a question "Which one would you
give your money to solve a scientific problem that is a matter of life
and death for you?". You failed to answer the question. That tells it all.


JE:-
You appear to have missed my point which was: such a hypothetical event
remains entirely CONTEXT SENSITIVE. If I was alone in say, the Australian
desert wearing just my underpants then the last person I would choose would
be some hypothetically high IQ non native. I would most certainly choose a
local low IQ native in preference simply because I am wish to remain
alive...

Bona fide theories remain subject to any _empirical_ context. It is just
misused, uncorrected heuristic models which have to delete certain contexts,
simply because they remain uncorrected, simplified/over simplified models.
In gene centric models the falsifiable fitness context only provided by the
Darwinian fertile form unit of selection was and remains, deleted.


Sorry but I have to ask: can you read? I spelt out "self-identified"
and the abstract talks of "self-identified" - and yet you are asking
what
definition I am referring to?

JE:-
Sorry but I have to ask: can you reason? Quite obviously I am asking: what
definitions (plural) you are you referring to? I have to ask because
"self
identified" remains rationally meaningless unless you PREDICATE it.

LOL. Why can't you understand that I am not referring to ANY
definitions?

JE:-
All this demonstrates is that you cannot reason. Is the hapless respondent
of what you write supposed to guess what you mean? Why do I have to explain
that you need to define your terms?

If you were to read and understand what's written in the
abstract, you'd see that the subjects were given a choice of several
categories and asked to *self-identify*. Whatever the hell the subjects
had
in mind when making an assignment is completely irrelevant.

If, however, you are asking for a definition of "self-identify" than
consider
this conversation ended. I don't believe you are *that* deficient in
English.

JE:-
I will indeed ask for your definition of "self". I will also ask for that
definition to become predicated in an entirely non reversible way simply
because when it isn't, you only end up with a tautology.

Do you now what a predicate is?

You would have to specify precisely which of the many possible meanings
of "predicate" you have in mind! Sheesh...

JE:-
This is probably well before your time: Any valid sentence in English
remains 100% comprised of at least one subject and one predicate. If the
subject and predicate remain reversible then all you have is a definition
(which is a tautology). This has to become logically linked to at least one
other sentence such that what has been defined also becomes non reversibly
predicated. I have provided a recent example.

You claimed that models remain the same as theories.

I *never* did.

JE:-
If this is the case then please accept my apologies. Did you go on to define
the critical difference between a model and a theory?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Coextensive properties?
    ... Quine's "Der" operator to reduce a two place predicate such as ". ... context C such that the object ... ... But we must now explicitly relativize this before we can apply the "Der" ... P by an ideal observer who would conform to all clauses of D1." ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Columns without names
    ... the relational operators on unary relations ... So in the context of the predicate ... is mathematically - simply as a set of naked elements, ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Columns without names
    ... the relational operators on unary relations ... So in the context of the predicate ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Lots of Idiotic Silly Braces?
    ... Can rva's be keys? ... A relation value being the extension of a predicate, ... Now, suppose that Pis the predicate of S. The first tuple of r ... But it can be the case that Pis true within the context of the ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Platos Forms
    ... predicate theory taught denies its existance. ... Fallacy relation would hinder deduction while usage of the exact inter- ... The cave lie where the blinded men sit, ... A literal double thought comprises the form of Plato. ...
    (sci.physics)