Re: e: "Inductive intelligence" or a "generalist" cognitive bias

"Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g18c2k$1dck$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John W Edser wrote:

"Phil Roberts, Jr." <philrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

I think that inductive reasoning is by far, the more important component
of high intelligence. Darwin presents an iconic example. Inductive
ability could be tested by testing question forming abilities rather
than just question answering abilities. Asking a better question is much
harder and has more impact than simply providing the correct answer to
an existing question.

Not bad, John. :)

I beg to disagree.

I see it as an example of John's, on reasonable grounds refutable,
rhetorical argumentation.

For example, consider the simple but 'super sweeping' question, "What is
causing us to behave the ways we do?";
It can, of course, give rise to rational answers arrived at from almost any
number of angles (including different of levels of scientific study and by
different degrees and ways of integrating _thus securely established_
principled, theories, insights, concepts and conclusion.

["The process of Science" - that (is, what) establishes rational (as opposed
to irrational) knowledge, ditto understanding and ('even') ditto states of
enlightement - does of course *also* involve serendipity intuitive inductive
and creative thinking!
This is what I mean/imply by "securely (by Science) established
principles.....").]

Other examples:
"What is consciousness?" can likewise be answered is several complementary
ways. (Some of which would in most cases require self-critical "analytical
attacks" on one's own (and, by implication, other people's) instinctively
(by evolution) and culturally established perceptual traps.



.

Relevant Pages