Scientists "born not made"
Robert Henderson
inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Joe Hutcheon
Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
>inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
>systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
>This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of
the
>scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively
when
>dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise
means
>that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped
to
>deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy.
And vice-versa? ie, are 'arts-minded' people ill-equipped to deal
with clearly bounded subjects?
In my young day, we were segrated at 16 into 'mods' and 'sciences',
reflecting the differences highlighted in the report you cite.
These days, students are encouraged (or at any rate not discouraged)to
study a mix of art and science at A level.
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White
news:3f9cf...@127.0.0.1...
That's probably why A-level grade averages have been lowered so much
recently, so they can get a few passes.
Dan Scorpio
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4zoAGqAehPn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
Since the study used a 'systematising quotient' it must, according to your
definition, be systemised and therefore 'clearly bounded' and hence
'ill-equipped to deal with unbounded subjects' such as human behaviours
and aptitudes.
Robert Henderson
writes
>
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
>>inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
>>systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>>
>>This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of
>the
>>scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively
>when
>>dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise
>means
>>that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped
>to
>>deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy.
>
>And vice-versa? ie, are 'arts-minded' people ill-equipped to deal
>with clearly bounded subjects?
>
The university I attended (Keele) was created in the 1950s with the
express intention of breaking down barriers between subjects. Not only
did all students have to undergo at least a passing acquaintance with
the full range of serious academic subjects, they also had to take
subsidiary subjects to a reasonable level in addition to their degree
subjects. Not only that but at least one of the subsidiary subjects had
to be opposed to the degree subjects, ie science students had to take
an arts or social science subsidiary and arts and social science
students had to take a science.
With the exception of anything requiring maths beyond O Level, the arts
and social science students handled the science far more easily than the
scientists handled the arts and asocial sciences. There is an obvious
reason for this: those in the arts and social sciences were most
comfortable with unbounded subjects, but they
could much more easily deal with bounded subjects than scientists could
deal with unbounded subjects because bounded subjects if they put their
minds to it are within the scope of anyone of decent intelligence
while unbounded subjects require a particular cast of mind. RH
>In my young day, we were segrated at 16 into 'mods' and 'sciences',
>reflecting the differences highlighted in the report you cite.
> These days, students are encouraged (or at any rate not discouraged)to
>study a mix of art and science at A level.
--
Frank X
> and social science students handled the science far more easily than the
> scientists handled the arts and asocial sciences.
With the exception of maths? But maths is the fundamental language of
science.
If what you are saying is that arts students are much better at waffling and
talking bullshit then you are probably right.
make...@worldnet.att.net
Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
In other wordz, the intellectual qualities
required to be a good scientist arise from
genetic, rather than environmental, influences...??
Ian
news:bnj5s2$10rr1k$1...@ID-103389.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:HsV$RhAqcQn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <3f9cf...@127.0.0.1>, Joe Hutcheon <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
> > writes
> > >
> >
> > With the exception of anything requiring maths beyond O Level, the arts
> > and social science students handled the science far more easily than the
> > scientists handled the arts and asocial sciences.
>
> With the exception of maths? But maths is the fundamental language of
> science.
As for mathemeticians specifically being both "intellectually and
psychologically ill-equipped to
deal with unbounded subjects such as... philosophy"
Was Bertrand Russell unable to comprehend philosophy, or Ludwig
Wittgenstein, or even Pythagoras? Methinks the theory needs a bit of work.
Dan Scorpio
"Ian" <i...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%i9nb.1332$lm1....@wards.force9.net...
> "Frank X" <Frank_...@yahoo.ie> wrote in message
> news:bnj5s2$10rr1k$1...@ID-103389.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:HsV$RhAqcQn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > > In article <3f9cf...@127.0.0.1>, Joe Hutcheon
<j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
> > > writes
> > > >
> > >
> > > With the exception of anything requiring maths beyond O Level, the
arts
> > > and social science students handled the science far more easily than
the
> > > scientists handled the arts and asocial sciences.
> >
> > With the exception of maths? But maths is the fundamental language of
> > science.
>
> As for mathemeticians specifically being both "intellectually and
> psychologically ill-equipped to
> deal with unbounded subjects such as... philosophy"
>
> Was Bertrand Russell unable to comprehend philosophy, or Ludwig
> Wittgenstein, or even Pythagoras? Methinks the theory needs a bit of work.
>
Leonardo da Vinci would second your comments
aretard
...
> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
confirms my 'controlled' studies ... i will not give 'details' here as it
only atrcts
testosterone fuelled abuse ... from 'those' who 'think' they know ...
... scientists merely memorise 'formulae' ... repetition of 'perceived
wisdom.
they have no 'intelligence'. except dirk, i love him.
Octafish
> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
Liberal-arts-vomit has contributed anything to society in 3000 years.
Science has enabled people to live longer, healthier more productive
lives.
Now ponder the many scientists who are excellent amature muscians,
writers and artists.
Intelligence is a gaussian curve, and you are on the left of the
median and jealous.
Harry the Horse
> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively
> when dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to
> systematise means that they are both intellectually and
> psychologically ill-equipped to deal with unbounded subjects such as
> history and philosophy.
>
you were saying about IQ tests a few weeks ago. IQ tests must be the
ultimate in mathematical, puzzle based 'bounded' intellectual exerises, yet
you seemed to be arguing at that time that they measured some sort of
'general' intellectual ability, that would be discernible in any arts or
scientific endeavour. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Robert Henderson
<Frank_...@yahoo.ie> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:HsV$RhAqcQn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <3f9cf...@127.0.0.1>, Joe Hutcheon <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk>
>> writes
>> >
>>
>> With the exception of anything requiring maths beyond O Level, the arts
>> and social science students handled the science far more easily than the
>> scientists handled the arts and asocial sciences.
>
>With the exception of maths? But maths is the fundamental language of
>science.
>
chemistry and even much of physics does not require advanced maths.
Moreover, think of Faraday, one of the greatest of physicists, with
nothing more than basic arithmetic in his intellectual armoury. RH
>If what you are saying is that arts students are much better at waffling and
>talking bullshit then you are probably right.
>
>
Translation: arts students can deal with the really difficult subjects.
RH
Robert Henderson
make...@worldnet.att.net writes
That is the import of the research. RH
Robert Henderson
<da...@local.nonet> writes
>This piece of nonsense is no doubt written a non-scientist exhibiting an intense
>sense of inferiority. In any case science is not "bounded" in the way you et al
>describe. This excuse is merely used by the less able to justify their existence
>and the spouting of tosh by for example the arts fac. of the OU. Masters of
>drivel. "Oh what a delightful blend of impossible colours that bind together the
>very primeval forces we so seldom see in our busy bustling modern lives. To
>express these things in such a way is the privelge of the blah blah blah cra*
>cra* cra*". Cummon - anyone can do it. There are of course genius in art - but
>self-proclaimation doesn't make it so.
>
>
A scientist panics in the face of an unbounded subject. RH
Robert Henderson
writes
>
>As for mathemeticians specifically being both "intellectually and
>psychologically ill-equipped to
>deal with unbounded subjects such as... philosophy"
>
>Was Bertrand Russell unable to comprehend philosophy, or Ludwig
>Wittgenstein, or even Pythagoras? Methinks the theory needs a bit of work.
Some people can do both, arts personalities "gone to the bad". :)
Dr. Sunil
> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
I don't know....my favourite subjects at school (pre-GCSE) were
History and Chemistry.
Dr. Sunil Prasannan
Imperial College London
Robert Henderson
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
>> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
>> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>>
>> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
>> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively
>> when dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to
>> systematise means that they are both intellectually and
>> psychologically ill-equipped to deal with unbounded subjects such as
>> history and philosophy.
>>
>I find it very difficult to square the comments you have made here with what
>you were saying about IQ tests a few weeks ago. IQ tests must be the
>ultimate in mathematical, puzzle based 'bounded' intellectual exerises
Not at all, most forms of IQ test are non-mathematical even in the
broadest sense. Good mathematicians will score well on IQ tests but
it does not follow that all who score well on IQ tests will be good
mathematicians. RH
>, yet
>you seemed to be arguing at that time that they measured some sort of
>'general' intellectual ability, that would be discernible in any arts or
>scientific endeavour. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
>
>
No, the general intellectual ability is just that. It is then expressed
in terms of the personality and the peculiar mental quirks of the
individual. RH
Robert Henderson
<neonmeat...@hotmail.com> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4zoAGqAehP
>n$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
>> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
>> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>>
>> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
>> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
>> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
>> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
>> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
>
>Liberal-arts-vomit has contributed anything to society in 3000 years.
>Science has enabled people to live longer, healthier more productive
>lives.
>
The classic scientists idea of argument on unbounded matters. RH
>Now ponder the many scientists who are excellent amature muscians,
>writers and artists.
>
Very few. RH
>Intelligence is a gaussian curve, and you are on the left of the
>median and jealous.
A scientist panics. RH
Ian
news:4zoAGqAehPn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
Well I wouldn't be surprised if, on average, bus drivers were better at
driving buses than plumbers and plumbers were better at plumbing than bus
drivers, even if we examine the basic personality traits behind being a good
bus driver or plumber (whatever on earth they may be). You have claimed
(elsewhere in thread) in a roundabout way that arts people are better at
science than scientists are at the arts. What you haven't told us is how
arts people scored in the science quotient and also how they scored in arts.
Without that information I cannot see how that conclusion is valid, even if
we assume that the tests are meaningful. Do you have the figures?
Ian
> In article <%i9nb.1332$lm1....@wards.force9.net>, Ian <i...@nospam.com>
> writes
> >
> >As for mathemeticians specifically being both "intellectually and
> >psychologically ill-equipped to
> >deal with unbounded subjects such as... philosophy"
> >
> >Was Bertrand Russell unable to comprehend philosophy, or Ludwig
> >Wittgenstein, or even Pythagoras? Methinks the theory needs a bit of
work.
>
>
> Some people can do both, arts personalities "gone to the bad". :)
I think that there is more to it than that. I think that there is actually a
link between philosophy (especially western philosophy) and mathematics.
They are both based on logic. Philosopher/mathematicians are not the
exceptions that prove the rule they are very common, in ancient Greece they
were the norm. Plato and Aristotle were both mathematicians. Plato hung a
sign above the entrance of his school which read "Let No One Un-versed in
Geometry Enter". The purest might argue that mathematics is not a science
and they would be correct, because it does not follow the scientific method,
but mathematics is fundamentally linked to science.
Look at the constitution of the USA, a political document on the rights of
man. In structure it is based on "The Elements" by the greek mathematician
Euclid. It imitates Euclid's axiomatic method. It lays down fundamental
principles and then attempts to derive rights based on those principles.
Perhaps philosophy is not an art in the same sense as sculpture or painting.
Actually I wonder what an art actually is. Is geography an art? Is history
an art but archeology a science? I have a feeling that we may simply be
putting things into unhelpful categories which are not aiding our
understanding.
Darren Rhodes
> In article <817qpvg31gsvqsgd7...@4ax.com>, dave
> <da...@local.nonet> writes
> >This piece of nonsense is no doubt written a non-scientist exhibiting an
intense
> >sense of inferiority. In any case science is not "bounded" in the way you
et al
> >describe. This excuse is merely used by the less able to justify their
existence
> >and the spouting of tosh by for example the arts fac. of the OU. Masters
of
> >drivel. "Oh what a delightful blend of impossible colours that bind
together the
> >very primeval forces we so seldom see in our busy bustling modern lives.
To
> >express these things in such a way is the privelge of the blah blah blah
cra*
> >cra* cra*". Cummon - anyone can do it. There are of course genius in
art - but
> >self-proclaimation doesn't make it so.
> >
> >
> A scientist panics in the face of an unbounded subject. RH
How could science progress if it was bounded, RH? We wouldn't have quantum
mechanics just Newtonian stuff if science was 'bounded' (er, well we
wouldn't have Newtonian mechanics but I had to start somewhere) .... What
are you trying to say? What about Hawkin radiation ...? How could someone
who was 'bounded' dream up something like that .... Darren.
abelard
typed:
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4+hQVsA7gSn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <%i9nb.1332$lm1....@wards.force9.net>, Ian <i...@nospam.com>
>> writes
>> >
>> >As for mathemeticians specifically being both "intellectually and
>> >psychologically ill-equipped to
>> >deal with unbounded subjects such as... philosophy"
>> >
>> >Was Bertrand Russell unable to comprehend philosophy, or Ludwig
>> >Wittgenstein, or even Pythagoras? Methinks the theory needs a bit of
>work.
>>
>>
>> Some people can do both, arts personalities "gone to the bad". :)
>
>I think that there is more to it than that. I think that there is actually a
>link between philosophy (especially western philosophy) and mathematics.
>They are both based on logic. Philosopher/mathematicians are not the
>exceptions that prove the rule they are very common, in ancient Greece they
>were the norm. Plato and Aristotle were both mathematicians. Plato hung a
>sign above the entrance of his school which read "Let No One Un-versed in
>Geometry Enter". The purest might argue that mathematics is not a science
>and they would be correct, because it does not follow the scientific method,
just so...but i'm working on that!
aristotelian logic has become a major part of modern philosophy
courses....usually to detriment....
>but mathematics is fundamentally linked to science.
>
>Look at the constitution of the USA, a political document on the rights of
>man. In structure it is based on "The Elements" by the greek mathematician
>Euclid. It imitates Euclid's axiomatic method. It lays down fundamental
>principles and then attempts to derive rights based on those principles.
indeed...godel on his way to his swearing in as an american citizen
apparently got rather excited as he explained to his companions
that he could prove there was a logical contradiction in the bill of
rights....
apparently they had some difficulty persuading him not to raise the
matter at the ceremony....
(as an understatement, godel was not entirely stable)
>Perhaps philosophy is not an art in the same sense as sculpture or painting.
>Actually I wonder what an art actually is. Is geography an art? Is history
>an art but archeology a science? I have a feeling that we may simply be
>putting things into unhelpful categories which are not aiding our
>understanding.
it is most gratifying to see so many setting about destroying the
multiple inconsistencies in hatstand's latest dribble....
it is good to be able to take a well earned rest!!
regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
politics, ethics, education, etc >600,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Binky Dawkins
"Dr. Sunil" <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bab4539.03102...@posting.google.com...
There must be something in RH's theory, just look at the drivel you spout
on every subject except test tubes !
James Teo
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
>inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
>systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
>This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
>scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
>dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
>that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
>deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
How are history and philosophy unbounded subjects? And why do you
think they belong in the arts?
Science is a branch of philosophy. Until the 19th century, scientists
were known as Natural Philosophers.
History is a social science.
I think your claims about this study are stretching it since you
define unbounded subjects pretty arbitrarily, declare without evidence
that "high systematising quotients imply bad with unbounded subjects",
make the assumption that history and philosophy belong in the arts and
assume that the fields of sciences and arts are opposites.
Many scientists are ALSO artists. Many of scientists are professional
musicians, painters, writers, etc as well. The people who make
comments like you clearly don't know many scientists, and only know
engineers.
Robert Henderson
<dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
And your wanderings into history in this ng demonstrate beautifully the
inability of the scientific mind to comprehend the unbounded. You
history posts are just fact piled on fact. RH
>Dr. Sunil Prasannan
>Imperial College London
--
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>
>it is most gratifying to see so many setting about destroying the
> multiple inconsistencies in hatstand's latest dribble....
>it is good to be able to take a well earned rest!!
Valves playing up? Terrible pain in the diodes down your left hand side?
Robert Henderson
<ja...@teoth.fsnet.coWORMDEFENSE.uk> writes
>>
>>This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
>>scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
>>dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
>>that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
>>deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
>
>How are history and philosophy unbounded subjects?
Because there are, in principle, no absolute answers in such subjects.
RH
> And why do you
>think they belong in the arts?
>Science is a branch of philosophy.
That is merely a semantic fact. RH
> Until the 19th century, scientists
>were known as Natural Philosophers.
>History is a social science.
>
>I think your claims about this study are stretching it since you
>define unbounded subjects pretty arbitrarily, declare without evidence
>that "high systematising quotients imply bad with unbounded subjects",
>make the assumption that history and philosophy belong in the arts and
>assume that the fields of sciences and arts are opposites.
>
Like all aspects of human behaviour, the quality of systematising will
be a continuum not a simple you have the quality or you don't. RH
>Many scientists are ALSO artists. Many of scientists are professional
>musicians, painters, writers, etc as well.
Very few of any quality. RH
> The people who make
>comments like you clearly don't know many scientists,
I have studied hundreds at close quarters. RH
> and only know
>engineers.
>
Oh dear, the traditional scientific disdain for the practical. RH
Robert Henderson
<bdaw...@thedrones.net> writes
allowed to clean at Imperial. RH
Robert Henderson
<darren....@btopenworld.com> writes
>> >
>> A scientist panics in the face of an unbounded subject. RH
>
>How could science progress if it was bounded, RH?
By bounded I mean finite and in principle capable of a definite and
objective conclusion. RH
Robert Henderson
<yab...@tard.com> writes
vintage. We don't want him blowing all his valves in one go. RH
Robert Henderson
<Dan.S...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4zoAGqAehPn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
>> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
>
>
>definition, be systemised and therefore 'clearly bounded' and hence
>'ill-equipped to deal with unbounded subjects' such as human behaviours
>and aptitudes.
>
Nope. It is quite possible to judge general behaviour using such a
system. RH
>>
>> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
>> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
>> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
>> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
>> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy.
>
>
--
Dan Scorpio
"Robert Henderson" Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote in message news:8Irx4CBT$kn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> In article bnj2h5$t7u$1...@titan.btinternet.com
, Dan Scorpio
> Dan.S...@btinternet.com
writes
> >
> >"Robert Henderson" Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
wrote in message
> >news:4zoAGqAehPn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> >> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> >> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
> >
> >
> >Since the study used a 'systematising quotient' it must, according to
your
> >definition, be systemised and therefore 'clearly bounded' and hence
> >'ill-equipped to deal with unbounded subjects' such as human behaviours
> >and aptitudes.
> >
>
> Nope. It is quite possible to judge general behaviour using such a
> system. RH
>
Certainly not: claims 'tis a scientific survey (and uses that branch of
mathematics known as statistics) and as such (by your own and
its own definition) it is of a bounded and limited (read 'thick') nature.
'for tis the sport
to have the engineer
hoist with his own petard'
Harry the Horse
>
> Not at all, most forms of IQ test are non-mathematical even in the
> broadest sense. Good mathematicians will score well on IQ tests
> but
> it does not follow that all who score well on IQ tests will be good
> mathematicians. RH
>
certainly 'bounded' in the sense of the word as you have defined it in this
thread. So I fail to see how they can measure the abilities needed to
excel in arts or creative activities. How, for example, can an IQ test
measure imagination, or a good sense of human nature? Frankly, I am pretty
sceptical of the idea that intelligence is measurable and predictive in the
sense that, say, blood pressure is. People have aptitudes - we're not all
Mozart or Picasso - but the idea that there's some essence of intelligence
that determines what we can do, smacks of the phlogiston theory rather than
real science.
Speaking as someone with a relatively low IQ (sub 100, when measured at the
age of 11) but who gained 4 A grade A levels, an Open Scholarship to Oxford,
a first & a succession of well paid jobs, I don't have a whole lot of time
for the predictive claims of IQ tests.
Harry the Horse
>
>> The people who make
>> comments like you clearly don't know many scientists,
>
> I have studied hundreds at close quarters. RH
>
Frank X
> In article <bnjj84$i4q$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Darren Rhodes
> <darren....@btopenworld.com> writes
> >> >
> >> A scientist panics in the face of an unbounded subject. RH
> >
> >How could science progress if it was bounded, RH?
>
> By bounded I mean finite and in principle capable of a definite and
> objective conclusion. RH
>
But Godel showed that in principal nothing is capable of a definite and
objective conclusion, even in mathematics ;o)
Robert Henderson
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes
into bole weevils or explain why the ice in your glass is melting. RH
Harry the Horse
> In article <ZXunb.3818936$Bf5.5...@news.easynews.com>, Harry the
> Horse <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The people who make
>>>> comments like you clearly don't know many scientists,
>>>
>>> I have studied hundreds at close quarters. RH
>>>
>> You must be a bundle of fun at parties.
>>
>>
> No, that's the scientists as they excitingly describe their research
> into bole weevils or explain why the ice in your glass is melting. RH
>
holly
The most boring have their own entry in Yellow Pages under 'Boring'.
Dr. Sunil
That's rich, coming from you - Blinkered Dawkins!
(and when did I ever mention test-tubes?)
Dr. Sunil
> In article <bnk3il$12qvlf$1...@ID-58803.news.uni-berlin.de>, Binky Dawkins
> <bdaw...@thedrones.net> writes
> >
> >"Dr. Sunil" <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:9bab4539.03102...@posting.google.com...
> >> Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<4zoAGqAehPn$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> >> > Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> >> > inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> >> > systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
> >> >
> >> > This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> >> > scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> >> > dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> >> > that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> >> > deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
> >>
> >> I don't know....my favourite subjects at school (pre-GCSE) were
> >> History and Chemistry.
> >>
> >> Dr. Sunil Prasannan
> >> Imperial College London
> >
> > There must be something in RH's theory, just look at the drivel you spout
> >on every subject except test tubes !
> >
> >
> Sunil has a truly bounded life, bounded by the limits of what he is
> allowed to clean at Imperial. RH
What would a retired 'tax-inspector' (read 'cleaner at the Revenue')
know about ANYTHING?
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03102...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<4zoAGqAehP
> >n$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
> >> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> >> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> >> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
> >>
> >> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> >> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> >> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> >> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> >> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
> >
> >I don't know....my favourite subjects at school (pre-GCSE) were
> >History and Chemistry.
> >
>
> And your wanderings into history in this ng demonstrate beautifully the
> inability of the scientific mind
So you admit to having a thoroughly unscientific mind?
> to comprehend the unbounded. You
> history posts are just fact piled on fact. RH
Evidence? One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
I have actually had one journey into the 'unbounded' published on the Web:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
Robert Henderson
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Not at all, most forms of IQ test are non-mathematical even in the
>> broadest sense. Good mathematicians will score well on IQ tests
>> but
>> it does not follow that all who score well on IQ tests will be good
>> mathematicians. RH
>>
>OK, perhaps 'mathematical' was a poor choice of words by me. But they are
>certainly 'bounded' in the sense of the word as you have defined it in this
>thread. So I fail to see how they can measure the abilities needed to
>excel in arts or creative activities.
They measure general intellectual performance. They do not say someone
will be a scientist or an historian, merely that if people choose an
academic career there is a chance they will succeed or will definitely
fail. RH
> How, for example, can an IQ test
>measure imagination, or a good sense of human nature? Frankly, I am pretty
>sceptical of the idea that intelligence is measurable and predictive in the
>sense that, say, blood pressure is. People have aptitudes - we're not all
>Mozart or Picasso - but the idea that there's some essence of intelligence
>that determines what we can do, smacks of the phlogiston theory rather than
>real science.
>
>Speaking as someone with a relatively low IQ (sub 100, when measured at the
>age of 11) but who gained 4 A grade A levels, an Open Scholarship to Oxford,
>a first & a succession of well paid jobs, I don't have a whole lot of time
>for the predictive claims of IQ tests.
>
>
That's a nasty inferiority complex you have there. RH
Robert Henderson
<Dan.S...@btinternet.com> writes
>>
>> Nope. It is quite possible to judge general behaviour using such a
>> system. RH
>>
>
>Certainly not: claims 'tis a scientific survey (and uses that branch of
>mathematics known as statistics) and as such (by your own and
>its own definition) it is of a bounded and limited (read 'thick') nature.
The process of assessment uses a bounded criteria - which is itself
devised by unbounded thought - but the behaviour it measures is
unbounded.
Robert Henderson
<da...@local.nonet> writes
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:13:29 +0000, Robert Henderson
><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <bnjj84$i4q$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Darren Rhodes
>><darren....@btopenworld.com> writes
>>>> >
>>>> A scientist panics in the face of an unbounded subject. RH
>>>
>>>How could science progress if it was bounded, RH?
>>
>>By bounded I mean finite and in principle capable of a definite and
>>objective conclusion. RH
>
>
>Basically what bothers you is that you can say what you like about unbounded art
>and sound clever provided it's said it in the right way with the right accent.
>It has the other plus of allowing pseuds to wave their arms about a bit, wear a
>bow tie and a frilly shirt and sound clever. One can do all these things in
>"bounded" science of course - only there a person may more readily be proved an
>idiot.
>
Classic scientist's inferiority complex. RH
Robert Henderson
<Frank_...@yahoo.ie> writes
Philosophically speaking, nothing certain beyond the cogito. However,
men have to live with the assumption that our thoughts and perceptions
of an external world are real. Within that context one may speak of the
objectively true, the bounded and unbounded. RH
Robert Henderson
>> inability of the scientific mind
>
>So you admit to having a thoroughly unscientific mind?
>
>> to comprehend the unbounded. You
>> history posts are just fact piled on fact. RH
>
>Evidence?
Just look at any of your posts on unbounded subjects. RH
> One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
Paris
> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively when
> dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to systematise means
> that they are both intellectually and psychologically ill-equipped to
> deal with unbounded subjects such as history and philosophy. RH
Sure.. Warm your pizza up with a prayer, or a by placing it under your print
of the haywayn (sp?).
--
Paris. Not the City
Robert Henderson
<hmode...@hotmail.com> writes
bread alone. RH
>Paris. Not the City
>
>
--
Paris
> The classic scientist's inability to understand that man cannot live by
> bread alone. RH
I'd rather have central heating than Tracey Emin.....
I think you people are just trying to cover up the fact that you don't
really understand 'modern stuff'.
I don't suppose you can tell me exactly how a light bulb works can you?
Andy Walker
> >You must be a bundle of fun at parties.
> No, that's the scientists as they excitingly describe their research
> into bole weevils or explain why the ice in your glass is melting. RH
I think the nature of Robert's problem is at last becoming
clear. *He* is not interested in boll weevils or phase changes, so
he thinks that anyone who is so interested must, *by definition*, be
a boring geek. He is not persuadable or educable, so he will remain
forever ignorant of such topics, and thinks of them as tiny, closed
blots on his mental landscape. Meanwhile, he can bore for England
on his own interests, so these are unbounded subjects that he can
discuss until the cows come home with the like-minded.
Those of us who try to keep open minds on such subjects find
that enthusiasts talking about their favourite topics can sometimes
-- not always, of course! -- prove fascinating, and can change our
views on them. In the days when "Horizon" was BBC2's flagship, it
was a truism that the apparently exciting topics would be a huge
disappointment, and the apparently unpromising would almost always
prove [literally] wonderful. Slime moulds must have been one of
the least attractive propositions ever; yet a programme about them
was incredibly beautiful, provocative and educational.
Academics have as one of their jobs the task of delivering
50-min talks, without hesitation, repetition or deviation, on a wide
variety of topics, many of them things that we all find boring, others
things that we find interesting and hope to persuade our audiences
likewise. The good ones do this extremely well. I find that I can
learn a lot by listening to them, no matter what their discipline.
Sadly, Robert either never meets these people, or else is determined
not to learn from them. So he will never know anything about boll
weevils, or why ice melts, or piano tunings, or slime moulds, or the
surreal numbers, or trilobites; nor, despite his proclaimed interest
in geology, about why the moon is bright right out to the edge when
it "should" display "limb darkening" [like the earth, the Sun, or a
billiard ball]. His loss, IMHO.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Gray Shockley
(in message <bnqofo$khv$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>):
"Imagine ping-pong balls in a tube and another one is pushed . . ."
Gray Shockley
-------------------------
[chortle]
Robert Henderson
<hmode...@hotmail.com> writes
Robert Henderson
Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<8UlxfRAqron$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> >You must be a bundle of fun at parties.
>> No, that's the scientists as they excitingly describe their research
>> into bole weevils or explain why the ice in your glass is melting. RH
>
> I think the nature of Robert's problem is at last becoming
>clear. *He* is not interested in boll weevils or phase changes
Absolutely (unintentionally) hilarious behaviour from you. It is not
that these things do not have an intrinsic interest, merely that the
social context of a party is the wrong one to introduce them into
conversation. You being one of the bounded subject gentry do not
realise that because social interaction will be as bewildering to you
as dealing with history or politics. RH
>, so
>he thinks that anyone who is so interested must, *by definition*, be
>a boring geek. He is not persuadable or educable, so he will remain
>forever ignorant of such topics, and thinks of them as tiny, closed
>blots on his mental landscape. Meanwhile, he can bore for England
>on his own interests, so these are unbounded subjects that he can
>discuss until the cows come home with the like-minded.
>
> Those of us who try to keep open minds
And how far do you think the bounded subject mind can open? RH
> on such subjects find
>that enthusiasts talking about their favourite topics can sometimes
>-- not always, of course! -- prove fascinating, and can change our
>views on them. In the days when "Horizon" was BBC2's flagship, it
>was a truism that the apparently exciting topics would be a huge
>disappointment, and the apparently unpromising would almost always
>prove [literally] wonderful. Slime moulds must have been one of
>the least attractive propositions ever; yet a programme about them
>was incredibly beautiful, provocative and educational.
>
I trust you took notes during the programme. RH
> Academics have as one of their jobs the task of delivering
>50-min talks, without hesitation, repetition or deviation, on a wide
>variety of topics,
Really? When do these miracles of articulacy occur? The likes of
Wittgenstein as lecturer come to mind. RH
> many of them things that we all find boring, others
>things that we find interesting and hope to persuade our audiences
>likewise. The good ones do this extremely well. I find that I can
>learn a lot by listening to them, no matter what their discipline.
>Sadly, Robert either never meets these people, or else is determined
>not to learn from them. So he will never know anything about boll
>weevils, or why ice melts, or piano tunings, or slime moulds, or the
>surreal numbers, or trilobites; nor, despite his proclaimed interest
>in geology, about why the moon is bright right out to the edge when
>it "should" display "limb darkening" [like the earth, the Sun, or a
>billiard ball]. His loss, IMHO.
>
Completely wrong. I have a strong interest in aspects of science. RH
Paris
> >I'd rather have central heating than Tracey Emin.....
> >I think you people are just trying to cover up the fact that you don't
> >really understand 'modern stuff'.
> >I don't suppose you can tell me exactly how a light bulb works can you?
> Thank God, no. RH
Then you just have a seat old man... And leave improving the lot of humanity
to those that can....
Robert Henderson
<hmode...@hotmail.com> writes
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03102...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >
> >> And your wanderings into history in this ng demonstrate beautifully the
> >> inability of the scientific mind
> >
> >So you admit to having a thoroughly unscientific mind?
> >
> >> to comprehend the unbounded. You
> >> history posts are just fact piled on fact. RH
> >
> >Evidence?
>
> Just look at any of your posts on unbounded subjects. RH
Examples? As far as 'unbounded' goes, I have my own theory on
Atlantis's location (NOT India, but the submerged part of SE Asia -
Sundaland).
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
>
> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
Indiana Jones.
Andy Walker
> Absolutely (unintentionally) hilarious behaviour from you. It is not
> that these things do not have an intrinsic interest, merely that the
> social context of a party is the wrong one to introduce them into
> conversation.
Doesn't that depend on the nature of the party? Boll
weevils are not the sort of thing to talk about while dancing
or playing sardines, and probably not while flirting. But the
more sedate affairs that are appropriate to your age and station
-- dinner/cocktail parties and the like -- are perfectly sensible
places to hold intelligent conversation. The point is not that
boll weevils are right or wrong, but that well-mannered people
are alert to whether their audience is interested or not, and
will either continue or change the topic as appropriate. I would
certainly rather hear an expert talking about diseases of mosquito
larvae, or patronage in 18thC Cambridge, or string theory, or
Nottingham Castle in mediaeval times, or the stability of Saturn's
rings, or a dozen other topics that I have learned about in recent
years round the dinner table, than engage in small talk about Posh
and Becks or the iniquities of modern youth. The experts I talk
to will happily switch to cricket or politics or whatever if they
find other topics palling.
You, OTOH, have proclaimed in another thread your utter
indifference to the reaction of your audience. You reap what
you sow.
> > Academics have as one of their jobs the task of delivering
> >50-min talks, without hesitation, repetition or deviation, on a wide
> >variety of topics,
> Really? When do these miracles of articulacy occur? The likes of
> Wittgenstein as lecturer come to mind. RH
They're called "lectures", Robert. I didn't say all academics
are amazingly brilliant at it. But around half, in my experience, are
very good, and most of the rest are competent -- better than that when
talking about things that interest them. The remainder, perhaps 10%,
are kept on because they contribute other things [typically, large
amounts of research income]. Interesting that your example died over
50 years ago; I'm surprised you didn't use Newton instead, as you are
so unenthusisatic about his general ability.
Times have changed. When I started, we were given a half-day
induction, consisting mainly of advice like "don't walk up and down
or flick chalk from one hand to the other, do write clearly, and try
not to mumble", and sent off to do it for real. No-one gave the most
important advice of all ["check your flies *before* starting"], no-one
came to check up how I was doing, and no-one took the slightest notice
of what the students thought. That was just about the time you started
as a student, and I don't suppose Keele was any different from Liverpool.
Competent lecturers were pure luck. Today, there are proper induction
courses, you are video'ed, inspected, mentored, pummelled into shape,
and sent on staff development courses; and a score below 3/5 on the
student questionnaires is a grave matter.
> Completely wrong. I have a strong interest in aspects of science. RH
Really? You have given not the slightest hint of it in your
many witterings. Quite the opposite, you have exhibited the most
appalling ignorance of scientific method and of even quite simple
maths and logic. But perhaps there is yet hope.
Robert Henderson
<dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>Examples? As far as 'unbounded' goes, I have my own theory on
>Atlantis's location (NOT India, but the submerged part of SE Asia -
>Sundaland).
>
>http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
>
>> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
>>
>> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
>
>'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
>interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
>Indiana Jones.
What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
Robert Henderson
>news:<0rtDQLA2lXo$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> Absolutely (unintentionally) hilarious behaviour from you. It is not
>> that these things do not have an intrinsic interest, merely that the
>> social context of a party is the wrong one to introduce them into
>> conversation.
>
> Doesn't that depend on the nature of the party? Boll
>weevils are not the sort of thing to talk about while dancing
>or playing sardines, and probably not while flirting. But the
>more sedate affairs that are appropriate to your age and station
>-- dinner/cocktail parties and the like -
Scientists of any age behave that way at parties. RH
>- are perfectly sensible
>places to hold intelligent conversation. The point is not that
>boll weevils are right or wrong, but that well-mannered people
>are alert to whether their audience is interested or not, and
>will either continue or change the topic as appropriate. I would
>certainly rather hear an expert talking about diseases of mosquito
>larvae, or patronage in 18thC Cambridge, or string theory, or
>Nottingham Castle in mediaeval times, or the stability of Saturn's
>rings, or a dozen other topics that I have learned about in recent
>years round the dinner table, than engage in small talk about Posh
>and Becks or the iniquities of modern youth. The experts I talk
>to will happily switch to cricket or politics or whatever if they
>find other topics palling.
>
Every post you make on this subject confirms my description of the
bounded subject mind. You just don't get social intercourse. RH
> You, OTOH, have proclaimed in another thread your utter
>indifference to the reaction of your audience.
Eh????????? RH
>You reap what
>you sow.
>
>> > Academics have as one of their jobs the task of delivering
>> >50-min talks, without hesitation, repetition or deviation, on a wide
>> >variety of topics,
>> Really? When do these miracles of articulacy occur? The likes of
>> Wittgenstein as lecturer come to mind. RH
>
> They're called "lectures", Robert. I didn't say all academics
>are amazingly brilliant at it. But around half, in my experience, are
>very good, and most of the rest are competent -- better than that when
>talking about things that interest them. The remainder, perhaps 10%,
>are kept on because they contribute other things [typically, large
>amounts of research income]. Interesting that your example died over
>50 years ago; I'm surprised you didn't use Newton instead, as you are
>so unenthusisatic about his general ability.
>
I have the greatest respect for Newton. He was a dreadful public speaker
by all accounts. RH
> Times have changed. When I started, we were given a half-day
>induction, consisting mainly of advice like "don't walk up and down
>or flick chalk from one hand to the other, do write clearly, and try
>not to mumble", and sent off to do it for real. No-one gave the most
>important advice of all ["check your flies *before* starting"], no-one
>came to check up how I was doing, and no-one took the slightest notice
>of what the students thought. That was just about the time you started
>as a student, and I don't suppose Keele was any different from Liverpool.
>Competent lecturers were pure luck. Today, there are proper induction
>courses, you are video'ed, inspected, mentored, pummelled into shape,
>and sent on staff development courses; and a score below 3/5 on the
>student questionnaires is a grave matter.
The tail wagging the dog. RH
>
>> Completely wrong. I have a strong interest in aspects of science. RH
>
> Really?
IQ testing and Darwinianism for example. RH
>You have given not the slightest hint of it in your
>many witterings. Quite the opposite, you have exhibited the most
>appalling ignorance of scientific method and of even quite simple
>maths and logic. But perhaps there is yet hope.
>
--
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03103...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >> Just look at any of your posts on unbounded subjects. RH
> >
> >Examples? As far as 'unbounded' goes, I have my own theory on
> >Atlantis's location (NOT India, but the submerged part of SE Asia -
> >Sundaland).
> >
> Thank you for demonstrating your historical ineptitude. RH
>
> >http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
How so? It is a theory (admittedly one of many), for which I provide
supporting evidence.
> >> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
> >>
> >> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
> >
> >'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
> >interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
> >Indiana Jones.
>
> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
_k o s h e r @kosherhotmail.com Hognoxious
> Examples? As far as 'unbounded' goes, I have my own theory on
> Atlantis's location (NOT India, but the submerged part of SE Asia -
> Sundaland).
It's near Newcastle?
_k o s h e r @kosherhotmail.com Hognoxious
> The voice of the Morlock. RH
better that than talking Bollocks [exit, pursuing by a beer]
Robert Henderson
<dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>> >http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
>
>How so? It is a theory (admittedly one of many), for which I provide
>supporting evidence.
That you think he is worthy of credence says it all. A more literate Van
Daniken. RH
>
>> >> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
>> >>
>> >> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
>> >
>> >'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
>> >interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
>> >Indiana Jones.
>>
>> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
>
>Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
Cary Kittrell
<In article <9bab4539.03110...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
<<dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
<>
<>> >http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
<>
<>How so? It is a theory (admittedly one of many), for which I provide
<>supporting evidence.
<
<That you think he is worthy of credence says it all. A more literate Van
<Daniken. RH
<
<>
<>> >> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
<>> >>
<>> >> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
<>> >
<>> >'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
<>> >interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
<>> >Indiana Jones.
<>>
<>> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
<>
<>Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
<
<Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
Oh, the irony. ("Pilot"?)
-- cary
Robert Henderson
<hognoxious@_k.o> writes
Robert Henderson
<ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> writes
>
>
>
><>> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
><>
><>Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
><
><Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
>
>
>Oh, the irony. ("Pilot"?)
Indeed, that you should be venturing into intellectual territory so
foreign to you. RH
Dr. Sunil
Sundaland as in Sunda Shelf, Lesser Sunda Islands, etc.
As for our Sunderland, interestingly, much of the North Sea would have
been above water 11,000 years ago, though an Ice Cap would have
precluded the siting of decent-sized human settlements this far north.
Sunil
--
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03110...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >
> >> >http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php?
> >
> >How so? It is a theory (admittedly one of many), for which I provide
> >supporting evidence.
>
> That you think he is worthy of credence says it all. A more literate Van
> Daniken. RH
Just shows what you know - Daniken believes in extra-terrestrial
sources for human civilization after the Ice Age, Hancock merely an
antediluvian source.
Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
> >> >> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
> >> >>
> >> >> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
> >> >
> >> >'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
> >> >interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
> >> >Indiana Jones.
> >>
> >> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
> >
> >Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
>
> Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
'ITB' was merely an essay in virulent race-hate. Nothing more, nothing
less.
Alan G
wrote:
pedant mode:
I think you mean much of the 'land under the North sea' would have
been above water.
>Sunil
Robert Henderson
>> >supporting evidence.
>>
>> That you think he is worthy of credence says it all. A more literate Van
>> Daniken. RH
>
>Just shows what you know - Daniken believes in extra-terrestrial
>sources for human civilization after the Ice Age, Hancock merely an
>antediluvian source.
And Hancock believes in Atlantis-style lost civilisations. (Snigger).
>
>Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
>tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
>dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
>
Which proves nothing. RH
>> >> >> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
>> >> >
>> >> >'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
>> >> >interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
>> >> >Indiana Jones.
>> >>
>> >> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
>> >
>> >Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
>>
>> Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
>
>'ITB' was merely an essay in virulent race-hate. Nothing more, nothing
>less.
See - I said it was beyond your intellectual and psychological compass.
Cary Kittrell
<In article <bo15jg$4hn$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<<ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> writes
<>
<>
<>
<><>> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
<><>
<><>Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
<><
<><Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
<>
<>
<>Oh, the irony. ("Pilot"?)
<
<Indeed, that you should be venturing into intellectual territory so
<foreign to you. RH
What, noticing when someone commits a howler ("jesting Pilot") smack dab in
the middle of making condescending remarks about another's intellect?
No, I'd say that's well within my range.
-- cary
Robert Henderson
<ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> writes
>In article <GvAPBgBGNTp$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> Robert Henderson
><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes:
><In article <bo15jg$4hn$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
><<ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> writes
><>
><>
><>
><><>> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
><><>
><><>Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
><><
><><Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
><>
><>
><>Oh, the irony. ("Pilot"?)
><
><Indeed, that you should be venturing into intellectual territory so
><foreign to you. RH
>
>
>What, noticing when someone commits a howler ("jesting Pilot") smack dab in
>the middle of making condescending remarks about another's intellect?
>
>No, I'd say that's well within my range.
>
>
>-- cary
--
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03110...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >> >How so? It is a theory (admittedly one of many), for which I provide
> >> >supporting evidence.
> >>
> >> That you think he is worthy of credence says it all. A more literate Van
> >> Daniken. RH
> >
> >Just shows what you know - Daniken believes in extra-terrestrial
> >sources for human civilization after the Ice Age, Hancock merely an
> >antediluvian source.
>
> And Hancock believes in Atlantis-style lost civilisations. (Snigger).
So apparently did Plato.....
> >Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
> >tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
> >dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
> >
>
> Which proves nothing. RH
What are the odds of the dates coinciding to within 600 years being a
real coincidence?
> >> >> >> > One could say that about your 'theories' on human genetics.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Theories by definition are arguments not facts. RH
> >> >> >
> >> >> >'Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not truth. If it's truth you're
> >> >> >interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy Class is right down the hall.' -
> >> >> >Indiana Jones.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is truth? asked jesting Pilot. RH
> >> >
> >> >Just stick to the dodgy cricket articles, Robert.
> >>
> >> Equally beyond your intellectual and psychological range. RH
> >
> >'ITB' was merely an essay in virulent race-hate. Nothing more, nothing
> >less.
>
> See - I said it was beyond your intellectual and psychological compass.
> RH
My synposis pretty much sums it up. As they say, the truth hurts!
Dr. Sunil
Robert Henderson
>> >sources for human civilization after the Ice Age, Hancock merely an
>> >antediluvian source.
>>
>> And Hancock believes in Atlantis-style lost civilisations. (Snigger).
>
>So apparently did Plato.....
>
>> >Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
>> >tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
>> >dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
>> >
>>
>> Which proves nothing. RH
>
>What are the odds of the dates coinciding to within 600 years being a
>real coincidence?
Only six hundred years, eh? (Chortle). RH
_k o s h e r @kosherhotmail.com Hognoxious
> wrote:
...
> >> "Dr. Sunil" <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:9bab4539.03103...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >
> >As for our Sunderland, interestingly, much of the North Sea would have
> >been above water 11,000 years ago, though an Ice Cap would have
> >precluded the siting of decent-sized human settlements this far north.
> >
> pedant mode:
> I think you mean much of the 'land under the North sea' would have
> been above water.
Most of the North Sea is above water now. It's only the thin layer in
contact with the seabed that isn't.
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03110...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > >Just shows what you know - Daniken believes in extra-terrestrial
> >> >sources for human civilization after the Ice Age, Hancock merely an
> >> >antediluvian source.
> >>
> >> And Hancock believes in Atlantis-style lost civilisations. (Snigger).
> >
> >So apparently did Plato.....
> >
> He lived in a pre-scientific age. RH
And?
> >> >Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
> >> >tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
> >> >dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which proves nothing. RH
> >
> >What are the odds of the dates coinciding to within 600 years being a
> >real coincidence?
>
> Only six hundred years, eh? (Chortle). RH
Out of 11,000?
Robert Henderson
>
>And?
>
>> >> >Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
>> >> >tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
>> >> >dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Which proves nothing. RH
>> >
>> >What are the odds of the dates coinciding to within 600 years being a
>> >real coincidence?
>>
>> Only six hundred years, eh? (Chortle). RH
>
>Out of 11,000?
The time between Agincourt and today. RH
Alan G
The North sea consists of *all* the water including the bit next to
the sea bed. It can't be above itself. It's not abelard FFS.
_k o s h e r @kosherhotmail.com Hognoxious
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:09:54 +0100, "Hognoxious" <hognoxious _k o s h e
> r @ k o s h e r hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Most of the North Sea is above water now. It's only the thin layer in
> >contact with the seabed that isn't.
> >
> The North sea consists of *all* the water including the bit next to
> the sea bed.
You should go on mastermind. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.
If you read my post, you will find that I never said otherwise.
Which part of 'most of' do you not understand?
A football team consists of 11 players. *Most of* them are not goalkeepers.
Did I say there are no goalkeepers in the team?
> It can't be above itself.
Never said that.
But one part of it can be above another part. You do understand that things
can be divided into parts?
You can't be above yourself; but your head can be above your arse. Or up
it, in your case.
> It's not abelard FFS.
Are you sure *you* aren't?
Dr. Sunil
> In article <9bab4539.03110...@posting.google.com>, Dr. Sunil
> <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >
> >> He lived in a pre-scientific age. RH
> >
> >And?
> >
> The incomprehension of the scientific mind in evidence again. RH
You are very unscientific, aren't you?
> >> >> >Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
> >> >> >tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
> >> >> >dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Which proves nothing. RH
> >> >
> >> >What are the odds of the dates coinciding to within 600 years being a
> >> >real coincidence?
> >>
> >> Only six hundred years, eh? (Chortle). RH
> >
> >Out of 11,000?
>
> The time between Agincourt and today. RH
A blink of an eye in geological terms. '11000 years ago' is admittedly
very approximate. One estimate of an intense geological event in the
mid-Atlantic is 9645 BC. Plato's date is also approximate - 9,000
years before Solon's time. Solon was around c.600 BC.
Alan G
r @ k o s h e r hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Alan G" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>news:1v8iqv8edado0ul1h...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:09:54 +0100, "Hognoxious" <hognoxious _k o s h e
>> r @ k o s h e r hotmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> >Most of the North Sea is above water now. It's only the thin layer in
>> >contact with the seabed that isn't.
>> >
>> The North sea consists of *all* the water including the bit next to
>> the sea bed.
>
>You should go on mastermind. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.
>If you read my post, you will find that I never said otherwise.
>Which part of 'most of' do you not understand?
You said 'a thin layer'. A layer would have volume and be separate
from the whole.
>
>A football team consists of 11 players. *Most of* them are not goalkeepers.
>Did I say there are no goalkeepers in the team?
There doesn't have to be a goalie in the team. He couls have been sent
off for fouling.
>
>> It can't be above itself.
>
>Never said that.
>But one part of it can be above another part. You do understand that things
>can be divided into parts?
We described the north sea as a sea not bits of it. It has a top
surface and a bottom surface. All of it is water. the water could be
layered in different temperatures but it's still all north sea.
>
>You can't be above yourself; but your head can be above your arse. Or up
>it, in your case.
Temper temper.
It's not often I do the pedant bit so let me enjoy it
>
>> It's not abelard FFS.
>
>Are you sure *you* aren't?
Yes.
I'm not a wannabee socialist.
>
Robert Henderson
>
>You are very unscientific, aren't you?
>
>> >> >> >Funny how Plato's date for the Atlantis Flood (c.11,600 years ago)
>> >> >> >tallies nicely with the c.11,000 year old spike in sea-level rise
>> >> >> >dated by the geologists and oceanographers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which proves nothing. RH
>> >> >
>> >> >What are the odds of the dates coinciding to within 600 years being a
>> >> >real coincidence?
>> >>
>> >> Only six hundred years, eh? (Chortle). RH
>> >
>> >Out of 11,000?
>>
>> The time between Agincourt and today. RH
>
>A blink of an eye in geological terms. '11000 years ago' is admittedly
>very approximate. One estimate of an intense geological event in the
>mid-Atlantic is 9645 BC. Plato's date is also approximate - 9,000
>years before Solon's time. Solon was around c.600 BC.
How many times have you "bought" Trafalgar Square and Tower Bridge? RH
_k o s h e r @kosherhotmail.com Hognoxious
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:51:11 +0100, "Hognoxious" <hognoxious _k o s h e
> r @ k o s h e r hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Alan G" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
> >news:1v8iqv8edado0ul1h...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:09:54 +0100, "Hognoxious" <hognoxious _k o s h e
> >> r @ k o s h e r hotmail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> >Most of the North Sea is above water now. It's only the thin layer in
> >> >contact with the seabed that isn't.
> >> >
> >> The North sea consists of *all* the water including the bit next to
> >> the sea bed.
> >
> >You should go on mastermind. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.
> >If you read my post, you will find that I never said otherwise.
> >Which part of 'most of' do you not understand?
>
> You said 'a thin layer'. A layer would have volume and be separate
> from the whole.
As in, the bit along the bottom?
One molecule thick. That's pretty thin.
> >A football team consists of 11 players. *Most of* them are not
goalkeepers.
> >Did I say there are no goalkeepers in the team?
>
> There doesn't have to be a goalie in the team. He couls have been sent
> off for fouling.
IIRC, normally you can't bring the goalie sub on in that case, but an
'outfielder'[1] can go in goal.
I think you can play with 11 real players if you want.
> >> It can't be above itself.
> >
> >Never said that.
> >But one part of it can be above another part. You do understand that
things
> >can be divided into parts?
>
> We described the north sea as a sea not bits of it.
You did. *I* didn't.
And actually, you were both on about the land under/over it.
> It has a top
> surface and a bottom surface. All of it is water. the water could be
> layered in different temperatures but it's still all north sea.
And? I can speak of the bottom (or top, or middle, or east) and not be
talking about the whole.
I can speak of a battalion, that doesn't say anything about the rest of the
brigade.
> >You can't be above yourself; but your head can be above your arse. Or up
> >it, in your case.
>
> Temper temper.
I was a bit harsh, sorry.
> It's not often I do the pedant bit so let me enjoy it
Well you could do it properly.
If you'd said "most the land that is now [the bed of|under] the North Sea
would have been above the sea level at that time" there would have been no
inconsistency.
> >> It's not abelard FFS.
> >
> >Are you sure *you* aren't?
>
> Yes.
> I'm not a wannabee socialist.
Is he? I thought he was a wannabee scientist.
[1] is there a name for a 'proper' player?
Andy Walker
> Every post you make on this subject confirms my description of the
> bounded subject mind.
All I have said on this subject is that many intelligent
people talk, in the right surroundings, about interesting things;
and that good manners requires that they be sensitive to their
audience. If that is your description of "the bounded subject
mind", then it's an abuse of language but I'm pleased to belong
to this group rather than to the ill-mannered boors.
> You just don't get social intercourse. RH
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single solitary
person with whom I have had social intercourse who is acquainted with
you. You are therefore AFAIK not well-placed to make such judgements.
> > You, OTOH, have proclaimed in another thread your utter
> >indifference to the reaction of your audience.
> Eh????????? RH
See "<4wo0wjAFzkm$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>" and its
predecessors.
> >> Completely wrong. I have a strong interest in aspects of science. RH
> IQ testing and Darwinianism for example. RH
Oh. 'Nuff said.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<K0P83LA9b4
>o$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> Every post you make on this subject confirms my description of the
>> bounded subject mind.
>
> All I have said on this subject is that many intelligent
>people talk, in the right surroundings, about interesting things;
>and that good manners requires that they be sensitive to their
>audience. If that is your description of "the bounded subject
>mind", then it's an abuse of language but I'm pleased to belong
>to this group rather than to the ill-mannered boors.
>
Like all other human attributes, boundedness is a continuum.
Scientists are at the bounded end, although of course they vary
individually in their ability to deal with the unbounded. RH
>> You just don't get social intercourse. RH
>
> To the best of my knowledge, there is not one single solitary
>person with whom I have had social intercourse who is acquainted with
>you. You are therefore AFAIK not well-placed to make such judgements.
I am acquainted with your mind through the newsgroups. That is all I
need to make the judgement. RH
>
>> > You, OTOH, have proclaimed in another thread your utter
>> >indifference to the reaction of your audience.
>> Eh????????? RH
>
> See "<4wo0wjAFzkm$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>" and its
>predecessors.
>
>> >> Completely wrong. I have a strong interest in aspects of science. RH
>> IQ testing and Darwinianism for example. RH
>
> Oh. 'Nuff said.
>
Indeed, about your understanding of what science contains. RH
Dr A. N. Walker
Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Like all other human attributes, boundedness is a continuum.
In Hendersonland perhaps. In the Real World, people
recognise garbage and flannel when they see it. Anyway, just
so that we can all discover where on this "continuum" we come,
is there any way to measure the "boundedness" attribute? Some
"boundedness quotient"? Or is it one of the attributes that
only RH is allowed to hand out, like Englishness?
>I am acquainted with your mind through the newsgroups.
Gosh. May the Force be with you.
Robert Henderson
<a...@merlot.uucp> writes
>In article <YFmorJAKJ5s$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Like all other human attributes, boundedness is a continuum.
>
> In Hendersonland perhaps. In the Real World, people
>recognise garbage and flannel when they see it. Anyway, just
>so that we can all discover where on this "continuum" we come,
>is there any way to measure the "boundedness" attribute? Some
>"boundedness quotient"? Or is it one of the attributes that
>only RH is allowed to hand out, like Englishness?
>
>>I am acquainted with your mind through the newsgroups.
>
> Gosh. May the Force be with you.
>
The scientist's idea of humour. Absolutely hilarious in its ineptitude.
Andy Walker
> >>Like all other human attributes, boundedness is a continuum.
> > In Hendersonland perhaps. In the Real World, people
> >recognise garbage and flannel when they see it. Anyway, just
> >so that we can all discover where on this "continuum" we come,
> The study which started this thread did just that. RH
No it did not. It was a questionnaire which apparently
[for we are not given much information about the significance,
reliability, etc of the resulting statistics] revealed that
scientists are more likely than artists to want to understand
and build systems. That should not surprise anyone, for that
is what science is all about. No mention of "boundedness",
nor even of any related concept. Even so, either Dr Lythgoe
or [more likely] the "Daily Telegraph" made a pig's ear of the
report; which is no reason for you to make a further pig's ear
of your summary thereof.
> >>I am acquainted with your mind through the newsgroups.
> > Gosh. May the Force be with you.
> The scientist's idea of humour. Absolutely hilarious in its ineptitude.
Nowhere near as hilarious as the notion that you understand
my behaviour in social gatherings, about which you have no source
of information whatsoever, purely by telepathy.
Robert Henderson
>news:<m9Hn1VALwRt$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> >>Like all other human attributes, boundedness is a continuum.
>> > In Hendersonland perhaps. In the Real World, people
>> >recognise garbage and flannel when they see it. Anyway, just
>> >so that we can all discover where on this "continuum" we come,
>> >is there any way to measure the "boundedness" attribute? [...]
>> The study which started this thread did just that. RH
>
> No it did not. It was a questionnaire which apparently
>[for we are not given much information about the significance,
>reliability, etc of the resulting statistics] revealed that
>scientists are more likely than artists to want to understand
>and build systems. That should not surprise anyone, for that
>is what science is all about. No mention of "boundedness",
>nor even of any related concept.
Boundedness is a related attribute. RH
> Even so, either Dr Lythgoe
>or [more likely] the "Daily Telegraph" made a pig's ear of the
>report; which is no reason for you to make a further pig's ear
>of your summary thereof.
>
>> >>I am acquainted with your mind through the newsgroups.
>> > Gosh. May the Force be with you.
>> The scientist's idea of humour. Absolutely hilarious in its ineptitude.
>
> Nowhere near as hilarious as the notion that you understand
>my behaviour in social gatherings, about which you have no source
>of information whatsoever, purely by telepathy.
>
>--
Thank you for demonstrating once again the limitations of your bounded
mind. You spread your personality all over every post you make. RH
>Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
>a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
--
Stoudman
> In article <zFanb.6894256$cI2.9...@news.easynews.com>, Harry the Horse
> <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> Mark Lythgoe of university College London has surveyed 400 academic
> >> inclined people and has found that scientists score 39 on a
> >> systematising quotient compared with 29 in the arts.
> >>
> >> This is very interesting because it confirms my experience of the
> >> scientifically-minded, namely, that they only function effectively
> >> when dealing with clearly bounded subjects. Their desire to
> >> systematise means that they are both intellectually and
> >> psychologically ill-equipped to deal with unbounded subjects such as
> >> history and philosophy.
> >>
> >I find it very difficult to square the comments you have made here with what
> >you were saying about IQ tests a few weeks ago. IQ tests must be the
> >ultimate in mathematical, puzzle based 'bounded' intellectual exerises
>
> Not at all, most forms of IQ test are non-mathematical even in the
> broadest sense. Good mathematicians will score well on IQ tests but
> it does not follow that all who score well on IQ tests will be good
> mathematicians. RH
>
It's ironic how you use IQ tests to support your argument. Aren't such
tests arbitrary, formulaic methods of objectively testing
intelligence?
> >, yet
> >you seemed to be arguing at that time that they measured some sort of
> >'general' intellectual ability, that would be discernible in any arts or
> >scientific endeavour. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
> >
> >
> No, the general intellectual ability is just that. It is then expressed
> in terms of the personality and the peculiar mental quirks of the
> individual. RH
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Stoudman" <paul...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ca6905ee.0311...@posting.google.com...
In which case all you need to do is practice in order to boost your IQ by
(say) 50 points.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Robert Henderson
<paul...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>
>> Not at all, most forms of IQ test are non-mathematical even in the
>> broadest sense. Good mathematicians will score well on IQ tests but
>> it does not follow that all who score well on IQ tests will be good
>> mathematicians. RH
>>
>
>It's ironic how you use IQ tests to support your argument. Aren't such
>tests arbitrary,
No. The accord with commonsense and correlate with general
intellectual performance and life outcome. RH
> formulaic methods of objectively testing
>intelligence?
--
Robert Henderson
at Neopax <di...@neopax.com> writes
>> >
>>
>> It's ironic how you use IQ tests to support your argument. Aren't such
>> tests arbitrary, formulaic methods of objectively testing
>> intelligence?
>
>
>In which case all you need to do is practice in order to boost your IQ by
>(say) 50 points.
>--
>Dirk
I wonder how long we shall have to wait for him to get there? Hint: an
eternity. RH
Andy Walker
> > [Lythgoe's study] revealed that
> >scientists are more likely than artists to want to understand
> >and build systems. That should not surprise anyone, for that
> >is what science is all about. No mention of "boundedness",
> >nor even of any related concept.
> Boundedness is a related attribute. RH
Don't be silly. Lythgoe didn't say which topics his subjects
were interested in, and trying to build understanding is a feature of
all science *and* every other academic discipline -- inc history. No
mention at all of whether the topics have exact answers [which seems
to be your criterion]. If anything, the study reveals a defect in
artists -- viz that they are less likely to be intellectually curious
about or within their speciality. I expect he meant musicians and
painters rather than historians, though.
> Thank you for demonstrating once again the limitations of your bounded
> mind.
We all have limited and bounded minds. Some more so than others.
> You spread your personality all over every post you make. RH
No doubt. But you show no signs at all of any ability to
interpret the results.
--
Robert Henderson
Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<TIc6IXAoFUu$Ew...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> > [Lythgoe's study] revealed that
>> >scientists are more likely than artists to want to understand
>> >and build systems. That should not surprise anyone, for that
>> >is what science is all about. No mention of "boundedness",
>> >nor even of any related concept.
>> Boundedness is a related attribute. RH
>
> Don't be silly. Lythgoe didn't say which topics his subjects
>were interested in,
Unnecessary for testing a general ability. Just like IQ in fact. RH
> and trying to build understanding is a feature of
>all science *and* every other academic discipline -- inc history.
You miss the point, unsurprisingly as you have a strongly bounded mind.
Understanding for the unbounded mind is a completely different kettle of
fish to that foe the bounded mind. The former requires a certain answer,
the latter the best judgement of an uncertain truth. RH
>No
>mention at all of whether the topics have exact answers [which seems
>to be your criterion]. If anything, the study reveals a defect in
>artists -- viz that they are less likely to be intellectually curious
>about or within their speciality. I expect he meant musicians and
>painters rather than historians, though.
>
>> Thank you for demonstrating once again the limitations of your bounded
>> mind.
>
> We all have limited and bounded minds. Some more so than others.
>
My point exactly, scientists having the more bounded and limited. RH
>> You spread your personality all over every post you make. RH
>
> No doubt. But you show no signs at all of any ability to
>interpret the results.
>
Translation: I'm not like RH says, honest! RH
Dr A. N. Walker
Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> and trying to build understanding is a feature of
>>all science *and* every other academic discipline -- inc history.
>You miss the point, unsurprisingly as you have a strongly bounded mind.
No; *you* were the one claiming that Lythgoe's study
supports your [absurd] claims about science. Unsurprisingly,
it [at least, according to the reports about it] does no such
thing, ...
>Understanding for the unbounded mind is a completely different kettle of
>fish to that foe the bounded mind. The former requires a certain answer,
>the latter the best judgement of an uncertain truth. RH
..., for the study [apparently] was not asking about cold,
hard understanding versus warm, fuzzy understanding, but about
the wish to understand versus a lack of interest in understanding.
If you are happy to be ignorant, that's OK, but it's not a very
good advert for your subject.
You also might wish to review your paragraph quoted above,
for I suspect it does not say what you intended it to say. It's
complete rubbish either way, of course.
>Translation: I'm not like RH says, honest! RH
The truest thing you've written for years.