Peter Holmes: What is Fact.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=484073 time=1607597178 user_id=12709]
Peter Holmes wrote:

"why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. "

Not at all . Doing well in IQ tests shows nothing but how good you are at doing IQ tests.
[/quote]

That is technically inaccurate. IQ tests were developed explicitly to find the most common central features of good thinking, and since have been well vetted to remove possible bias. It's the most real, most measurable thing in all of psychology.

[Advocate]

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=484067 time=1607596558 user_id=7896]
It is not possible at present given the current state of the average human IQ, EQ and wisdom quotient.
[/quote]

Those are imaginary. IQ works by being simple pattern recognition relative to other humans. EQ isn't real and isn't even potentially definable in a measurable way and WQ isn't even a coherent thought.

[Peter Holmes]

Peter Holmes wrote:

"why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. "

Not at all . Doing well in IQ tests shows nothing but how good you are at doing IQ tests.

That is technically inaccurate. IQ tests were developed explicitly to find the most common central features of good thinking, and since have been well vetted to remove possible bias. It's the most real, most measurable thing in all of psychology.

Just to clarify - I didn't write that crap about tribal societies and IQs.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484094 time=1607611314 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484092 time=1607611075 user_id=15238]
[quote=Belinda post_id=484073 time=1607597178 user_id=12709]
Peter Holmes wrote:

"why races which are rooted in tribal societies have lower IQs. "

Not at all . Doing well in IQ tests shows nothing but how good you are at doing IQ tests.
[/quote]

That is technically inaccurate. IQ tests were developed explicitly to find the most common central features of good thinking, and since have been well vetted to remove possible bias. It's the most real, most measurable thing in all of psychology.
[/quote]
Just to clarify - I didn't write that crap about tribal societies and IQs.
[/quote]

My anthropological interpretation is debatable but it fits the empirical evidence. The alternatives, that IQ isn't real or that all people are equal in intelligence, even at birth, are Not compatible with the empirical evidence.

The entire contingent of Africa has an average IQ that is considered mentally deficient in the west. How then do you explain how they get along just fine in their own cultures, after accounting for interference? The simplest explanation, which makes perfect sense, is that they just didn't need advanced complexity thinking skills as far back as other independently developing populations.

[Peter Holmes]

That is technically inaccurate. IQ tests were developed explicitly to find the most common central features of good thinking, and since have been well vetted to remove possible bias. It's the most real, most measurable thing in all of psychology.

Just to clarify - I didn't write that crap about tribal societies and IQs.

My anthropological interpretation is debatable but it fits the empirical evidence. The alternatives, that IQ isn't real or that all people are equal in intelligence, even at birth, are Not compatible with the empirical evidence.

Measurement of intelligence - and therefore the empirical evidence for it - depends entirely on the definition of intelligence, which is by no means agreed. This is a dead end.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484105 time=1607613525 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484101 time=1607612642 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484094 time=1607611314 user_id=15099]

Just to clarify - I didn't write that crap about tribal societies and IQs.
[/quote]

My anthropological interpretation is debatable but it fits the empirical evidence. The alternatives, that IQ isn't real or that all people are equal in intelligence, even at birth, are Not compatible with the empirical evidence.
[/quote]
Measurement of intelligence - and therefore the empirical evidence for it - depends entirely on the definition of intelligence, which is by no means agreed. This is a dead end.
[/quote]

It's the quality of those innate, basic, and universal pattern recognition skills which correlate most strongly with all real-world measures of success, when controlling for everything possible. It's the perfect opposite of a dead end, it's a way forward. It's not debatable just because people who don't understand it say "nuh-uh", same as climate change and evolution.

[Peter Holmes]

My anthropological interpretation is debatable but it fits the empirical evidence. The alternatives, that IQ isn't real or that all people are equal in intelligence, even at birth, are Not compatible with the empirical evidence.

Measurement of intelligence - and therefore the empirical evidence for it - depends entirely on the definition of intelligence, which is by no means agreed. This is a dead end.

It's the quality of those innate, basic, and universal pattern recognition skills which correlate most strongly with all real-world measures of success, when controlling for everything possible. It's the perfect opposite of a dead end, it's a way forward. It's not debatable just because people who don't understand it say "nuh-uh", same as climate change and evolution.

False analogies. The empirical evidence for climate change and evolution is wholly different from the supposed empirical evidence for what we call intelligence, which isn't a phenomenon like climate change and evolution anyway. The abstract noun 'intelligence' isn't the name of a thing of some kind. That's a metaphysical delusion. So what supposed thing is it that we're measuring? Describe it any way you like, it can always be decribed differently.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484110 time=1607615093 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484108 time=1607613952 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484105 time=1607613525 user_id=15099]

Measurement of intelligence - and therefore the empirical evidence for it - depends entirely on the definition of intelligence, which is by no means agreed. This is a dead end.
[/quote]

It's the quality of those innate, basic, and universal pattern recognition skills which correlate most strongly with all real-world measures of success, when controlling for everything possible. It's the perfect opposite of a dead end, it's a way forward. It's not debatable just because people who don't understand it say "nuh-uh", same as climate change and evolution.
[/quote]
False analogies. The empirical evidence for climate change and evolution is wholly different from the supposed empirical evidence for what we call intelligence, which isn't a phenomenon like climate change and evolution anyway. The abstract noun 'intelligence' isn't the name of a thing of some kind. That's a metaphysical delusion. So what supposed thing is it that we're measuring? Describe it any way you like, it can always be decribed differently.
[/quote]

Some brains work better than others. We can measure that difference in the most universal pattern recognition and manipulation abilities of individuals. The results correlate with many other real-world measurements. It's as real as something can be, ie. measurable with predictive power. Describe it however you want, some people will still think better than others on a general level and we'll still be able to measure it, etc. You're trying to start the whole process over after it's already done.

You can even work the process in reverse. Start with the most successful people, by whatever generally accepted measure of cognitive output, and find the most universal difference between them and those who are less successful at the same whatever. That's IQ.

[Peter Holmes]

It's the quality of those innate, basic, and universal pattern recognition skills which correlate most strongly with all real-world measures of success, when controlling for everything possible. It's the perfect opposite of a dead end, it's a way forward. It's not debatable just because people who don't understand it say "nuh-uh", same as climate change and evolution.

False analogies. The empirical evidence for climate change and evolution is wholly different from the supposed empirical evidence for what we call intelligence, which isn't a phenomenon like climate change and evolution anyway. The abstract noun 'intelligence' isn't the name of a thing of some kind. That's a metaphysical delusion. So what supposed thing is it that we're measuring? Describe it any way you like, it can always be decribed differently.

Some brains work better than others. We can measure that difference in the most universal pattern recognition and manipulation abilities of individuals. The results correlate with many other real-world measurements. It's as real as something can be, ie. measurable with predictive power. Describe it however you want, some people will still think better than others on a general level and we'll still be able to measure it, etc. You're trying to start the whole process over after it's already done.

What constitutes a brain 'working better' and 'thinking better on a general level' than others? What are 'real-world measurements' in this context? Your claim that any of these ideas is objective - independent from opinion - is just false, how ever convinced you are that it's true.

[Advocate]

[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484126 time=1607616817 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484116 time=1607616032 user_id=15238]
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=484110 time=1607615093 user_id=15099]

False analogies. The empirical evidence for climate change and evolution is wholly different from the supposed empirical evidence for what we call intelligence, which isn't a phenomenon like climate change and evolution anyway. The abstract noun 'intelligence' isn't the name of a thing of some kind. That's a metaphysical delusion. So what supposed thing is it that we're measuring? Describe it any way you like, it can always be decribed differently.
[/quote]

Some brains work better than others. We can measure that difference in the most universal pattern recognition and manipulation abilities of individuals. The results correlate with many other real-world measurements. It's as real as something can be, ie. measurable with predictive power. Describe it however you want, some people will still think better than others on a general level and we'll still be able to measure it, etc. You're trying to start the whole process over after it's already done.
[/quote]
What constitutes a brain 'working better' and 'thinking better on a general level' than others? What are 'real-world measurements' in this context? Your claim that any of these ideas is objective - independent from opinion - is just false, how ever convinced you are that it's true.
[/quote]

I already gave the solution to those problems and you ignored it. Pick any measures of worldly success you like and you'll get the same results. To the extent people apply their brains to a problem, on average, there is a measurable difference in their ability to succeed. All this vitriol over the existence of a plainly obvious idea which has been exhaustively researched and documented, can only be ego-based willful ignorance. Call intelligence whatever you like. The common cognitive ground between people who are generally successful across a range of cognitive tasks is what IQ is a measurement of.

[Sculptor]

I think that is an example of weasel words.
Io 1940 Germany established that Jews were enemies of the state. No one was more "morally competant" than Hilter to deal with the problem.
In your own example. A claim of Moral incompetance might be brought against a legislature that allows more abortions, yet by the same token the fall in unwanted babies leading to fewer children in care could result in a claim of moral benefit.

Note my response to Peter above.
The process should be natural and do not involve coercion by laws, force or otherwise.

NATURAL??? ffs!!!
rofl

[Veritas Aequitas]

The expression 'moral competence' is deceptive. If to be morally competent means to act in certain ways and believe certain things, then to assume there are moral facts by which to judge the rightness and wrongness of behaviour and opinions begs the question. Why is the shift from accepting slavery to rejecting it a shift from moral incompetence towards moral competence? Is it because it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong?

You always missed the point that had been presented a "1000" times.

The the process;

• 1. First, from empirical evidences we verify and justify there are moral facts within a moral framework and system. 'Slavery is evil is a moral fact'
  2. The moral fact is thus a standard or norms, slavery is morally wrong i.e. 'no human ought to enslave another'
  3. Thus if there are trend of lesser slaves, there is a increase in moral competence or vice-versa.

Moral competence is the ability to align with the moral standard in 2.
If there were 500,000 chattel slaves >10,000 years ago and there are only 1,000 discovered in 2020 and were free by laws banning slavery, it is so obvious there is an increase in moral competence.
What is the problem with this argument?

And, for example, the increase in abortions and same sex marriage is seen by many as a decline in social moral competence. In other words, we judge moral competence by our own moral values and opinions, which are subjective.

We need to go through the above process.

1. Verify empirically and philosophically, abortion is a moral fact and is morally wrong.
2. Establish the moral fact of abortion as morally wrong as a standard within a moral framework.
3. Therefore if there is a high or increase in the number of abortions naturally [not by any coercion], then there is an decrease* in moral competence or vice-versa.

* or the inherent moral function is not yet active.

What's wrong with the above arguments?

Think about your #1 above: 'Verify empirically and philosophically, abortion is a moral fact and is morally wrong.'

How do we empirically verify that abortion is morally wrong? Please explain the empirical process. And don't just say it's morally wrong within a moral FSK. That isn't an empirical demonstration.

There are loads of moral facts and each must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
In the meantime my focus is there are moral facts related to humans killing humans and humans enslaving humans which I had discussed in details.

You are the one who raised the point about increase in abortion.
My focus is on the process applicable to verify all claims of moral facts.
In general I stated any decrease in number of immoral acts is moral progress and vice-versa.
I have discussed why abortion is immoral in general in other post but I will not go into the details of verifying abortion is immoral here which warrant more efforts and time.

Btw, that abortion is immoral as a moral fact is to be used a merely a guide, morality should not be imposed on individuals by laws [legal] or other pressures, etc.

[Belinda]

Just to clarify - I didn't write that crap about tribal societies and IQs.

My anthropological interpretation is debatable but it fits the empirical evidence. The alternatives, that IQ isn't real or that all people are equal in intelligence, even at birth, are Not compatible with the empirical evidence.

Measurement of intelligence - and therefore the empirical evidence for it - depends entirely on the definition of intelligence, which is by no means agreed. This is a dead end.

Exactly!

[Peter Holmes]

You always missed the point that had been presented a "1000" times.

The the process;

• 1. First, from empirical evidences we verify and justify there are moral facts within a moral framework and system. 'Slavery is evil is a moral fact'
  2. The moral fact is thus a standard or norms, slavery is morally wrong i.e. 'no human ought to enslave another'
  3. Thus if there are trend of lesser slaves, there is a increase in moral competence or vice-versa.

Moral competence is the ability to align with the moral standard in 2.
If there were 500,000 chattel slaves >10,000 years ago and there are only 1,000 discovered in 2020 and were free by laws banning slavery, it is so obvious there is an increase in moral competence.
What is the problem with this argument?


We need to go through the above process.


* or the inherent moral function is not yet active.

What's wrong with the above arguments?

Think about your #1 above: 'Verify empirically and philosophically, abortion is a moral fact and is morally wrong.'

How do we empirically verify that abortion is morally wrong? Please explain the empirical process. And don't just say it's morally wrong within a moral FSK. That isn't an empirical demonstration.

There are loads of moral facts and each must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
In the meantime my focus is there are moral facts related to humans killing humans and humans enslaving humans which I had discussed in details.

You are the one who raised the point about increase in abortion.
My focus is on the process applicable to verify all claims of moral facts.
In general I stated any decrease in number of immoral acts is moral progress and vice-versa.
I have discussed why abortion is immoral in general in other post but I will not go into the details of verifying abortion is immoral here which warrant more efforts and time.

Btw, that abortion is immoral as a moral fact is to be used a merely a guide, morality should not be imposed on individuals by laws [legal] or other pressures, etc.

Don't dodge. How do we empirically verify that X (eg, humans killing humans) is or isn't morally wrong?

Non-answer: there are loads of moral facts and each must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically.
Non-answer: there are moral facts related to humans killing humans.
Non-answer: a decrease in humans killing humans is moral progress.

[Belinda]

Peter Holmes wrote:

Don't dodge. How do we empirically verify that X (eg, humans killing humans) is or isn't morally wrong?

By means of subjective criteria like we 'verify' every other question.

Criteria include:

Is it natural?

Did God say so?

Does it benefit most people?

Does it benefit me and my own tribe (" tribe "i.e. social class: religious affiliates: the proletariat: people with skin colour x : the established rich: : the human species : and so forth) ?

Does it alleviate suffering?

Do my social superiors say so?

Is it heroic?
________________
A criterion such as "did God say so" or "do my social superiors say so" may look as if it is a moral criterion, but God has also proclaimed social control and public hygiene measures. My social superiors have long pretended they know best about everything from sexual mores to land use but have now been outed by Mandy Rice-Davies and others. What I mean is so-called 'moral claims' are as much practical claims as is how to milk a cow.