Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Race, Gender and Intelligence

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I'd still differentiate between the two.
    Certainly there are differences. What's your point?
    Valmont wrote: »
    Unfortunately they are rigidly attached to and biased towards their blunt statistical tools.
    Some disciplines favour quantitative methods, while others qualitative, or triangulation between both methods. They all have their limitations.
    Valmont wrote: »
    That their methods are objective and free from bias as you claim
    An attempt to avoid bias was not claiming to be free of bias. Sorry if that was not clear in the wording.
    Valmont wrote: »
    belief in induction
    Not sure what you were saying here. Hypotheses testing is often, but not always, a deductive process from theory. If the researcher does not begin with theory or hypotheses, but first begins by examining data sets to see if there are meaningful patterns, they may inductively form empirical generalizations, which can feedback into theory creation or modification, and hypotheses testing processes. This is a bit of an oversimplification. See Wallace's Wheel of Science for a clearer picture.

    In any case, the scientific method is a useful approach to examining phenomena, but it has its limitations, consequently the results suggest, not prove.


  • #53
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Certainly there are differences. What's your point?
    Because there's a large difference between 'truths' found through straight empiricism and those found by statistical studies. The former may be wrong due to missing data, flawed axioms, mistaken measurements or calculation errors, but typically they are infinitely more objective than the latter, that suffer from far greater biases, agendas and manipulation, which lead them to become the "marketing/advertising spin" you mentioned earlier.

    Indeed, to falsify the conclusions of a physics experiment require out and out falsification, but to falsify the conclusions of a social study require just selective, and seemingly academically acceptable, bias.


  • #54
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Because there's a large difference between 'truths' found through straight empiricism and those found by statistical studies. The former may be wrong due to missing data, flawed axioms, mistaken measurements or calculation errors, but typically they are infinitely more objective than the latter, that suffer from far greater biases, agendas and manipulation, which lead them to become the "marketing/advertising spin" you mentioned earlier.
    This was the spirit and intent of my earlier critique of the IQ test as a measure of intelligence, as well as the measurement of race (returning to the subject of this thread).


  • #55
    diveout
    Closed Accounts Posts: 746 ✭✭✭diveout


    Black Swan wrote: »
    This was the spirit and intent of my earlier critique of the IQ test as a measure of intelligence, as well as the measurement of race (returning to the subject of this thread).

    The IQ test is a measure of intelligence but it is not a measure of creativity or divergent thinking. The Stamford Binet seeks ONE answer, but you could argue that real intelligence is in coming up with several answers, solutions, inventions... the ability to make connections etc.

    Stamford Binet is trust worthy because it is quantitative, and not interpretive. But it is limited in what it can measure.
    Fascinating article here:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/06/secrets-of-the-creative-brain/372299/


Advertisement