Undeniable proof!

[padillah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
While an analytical thinker might not currently know math (though the pool of such people in the first world is relatively small today) the question is one of ability to learn it.

Although I don't understand the brains ability to learn enough to rebut this I do instincively deny it.

Logic is not math, despite how logical Math may be. The ability, or inability, to learn math has little or no reflection on a person's ability to analytical logic.

Tom P.

[Kuciwalker]

Logic is not math

Bzzt. Play again.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

3. Physics doesn't impress me any more than any given field that requires higher intelligence.

It should, honestly.

I'm sure that KH would be the first to tell you that not all his colleagues are equally bright.

The distribution of intelligence in physics departments is skewed higher than it is in any other environment I've experienced.

assume that the pinnacle of any field requires the same IQ (assume IQ = a genuine, reliable, quantification of intelligence for this purpose)

assume that the field picks from among those interested in rank order of intelligence.

Assume that the overall distribution of intelligence is identical for a set of N fields (could be all fields, all sciences, or everything except Literary theory - whatever)

Now assume that the fields differ dramatically in number of slots available.

Im too lazy to do the math but my intuition is that the smallest fields will have a cutoff at the highest IQ points. And thus highest average IQs.

Now which field is bigger, chemistry or physics? At least within the sciences, physics is, I suspect, smaller in number of specialists than chemisty or biology. And theoretical physics, is, I presume small compared to most sub fields in science.

So one would expect higher IQs among theoretical physicists, as compared to chemists, without referencee to the subject matter.


The equivalent to the "dumb" chemists who arent headed toward top research work, but are going to be out doing applied work in the chemical industry, are guys who never made it into physics, cause physics doesnt have that long a "tail"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
While an analytical thinker might not currently know math (though the pool of such people in the first world is relatively small today) the question is one of ability to learn it.

depends on your definition of "know math". There are enough fields where you can make considerable amounts of money without any very deep math, Id be very surprised if there werent a bunch of people who COULD learn higher math but never bothered to. Not everyone WANTS to be a scientist.

[Kuciwalker]

cause physics doesnt have that long a "tail"

Nitpick: the high end is the tail.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Logic is not math

Bzzt. Play again.

Umm, what?

Logical reasoning is not mathematics.

The ability to reason logically is not math.

I wish I could come up with other statements but this is so apriori I don't know how it could be contested.

You really think it takes math to reason out that if hitting your thumb with a hammer hurts you shouldn't hit your thumb? where's the math?

The reflexive is not true: Math is logical. Math is the very epitome of logic. But logic, and, by extension, anylitical thinking, are not mathmatics based.

Do you know how much math goes into a class diagram vs. how much logic? No, logic is not the equivalent of mathematics.

Tom P.

[Pekka]

While knowing that hammer hurts if you hit your thumb with it, that has very little to do with logical thinking, or the kind we're talking about.

[Pekka]

And logic has extremely much to do with mathematics. Very, very much.

If you claim this isn't so, you don't know math or logic in the classic way. You can put that in your bookkeeping.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

cause physics doesnt have that long a "tail"

Nitpick: the high end is the tail.

I wasnt really thinking in terms of a normal distribution, which of course would have TWO tails. Im thinking more in terms of a cone, with an apex, and I guess a base.

[lord of the mark]

Note Im not SAYING that the above is anything like a complete model of supply and demand for labor in the sciences.

I would say that you can probably do a pretty good model of supply and demand for labor in the science market, one which would make some strong predictions about things like relative IQ in the various fields, without actually describing the substance of work in those fields.

But then analytic work is all about abstraction, isnt it?

[Pekka]

So, it means scientists actually have to do that as well, with abstracts, while librul pansies can't crunch numbers, and only talk about the abstract in very relative, very abstract terms

[padillah]

Originally posted by Pekka
And logic has extremely much to do with mathematics. Very, very much.

If you claim this isn't so, you don't know math or logic in the classic way. You can put that in your bookkeeping.

I never said it didn't.

I said: Logic isn't math. Logic != math.

They are, in fact two different subjects, look it up. That's why one is called 'logic' and the other isn't.

In point of fact I didn't even start out by saying that. It's been twisted into this much weaker statement.

My original line was: Analytical thinking is not dependant on mathematics.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nobody who can't do mathematics at a high level can be considered an extremely analytical thinker.

In other words, KH posited the ability to do math as a pre-requisite to analytical thinking, and I disagree.

I still do. Knowledge of math (or ability to learn math, as amended later) does not translate into the ability to think analytically. Actually, much to your point, it flows much better the other way: The ability to think analytically has every opportunity to help with mathematics.

Tom P.

[Jon Miller]

I will help you:

Mathematics (union) Logic = Mathematics
Mathematics (intersection) Logic = Logic

JM

[Pekka]

Yeah, so why did you bring up an example of thumb and a hammer? Is that logic according to your interpretation?

Logic is a big part of math, and it's an intersecting relationship. Yeah, bread is not butter, but a sandwhich has both, and if you choke on it, it's not part of logics anyway.

[Pekka]

Miller, wrong.