Undeniable proof!

[padillah]

Originally posted by 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.

To me (and I understand this may not be the formal definition) 'logic' has always been 'logical deduction'. I guess it's all those Columbo reruns (they were reruns! I'm not that old).

So, to me 'logic', 'analytical reasoning', and 'logical thinking' are pretty much one and the same. To understand that "hitting yourself hurts so to keep from hurting, don't hit yourself" is a logical thought process that does not involve math. This is what I was trying to find: analytical thinking that did not involve math.

I suppose I shouldn't have switched words either. That might have helped stay on track better, too.

Tom P.

[Meticulous Man]

Originally posted by laurentius
IQ tests are so expired

QFT

The only purpose they are good for is the one for which they were originally devised: detection of people with learning difficulties.

[Pekka]

padillah, sure, but you see it's not trivial, that the thumb example is analytical thinking per se. I know what you're after, I just disagree your example being part of it

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Pekka
Miller, wrong.

logic
1. A branch of philosophy and mathematics that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge.


JM

[padillah]

Valid or not, what use could they possibly serve?

If I knew exactly how smart I was it wouldn't matter one whit. I'm doing what I'm doing, not because I'm smart enough to do it but because I have the ability and it's marketable.

If there was a way to quantify intelligence, would that make for a good pre-requisite for a job? Why would any manager in their right mind want anyone lower than 150? Who could possibly think "I'll hire the least intelligent people I can find. That'll be good."

Intelligence, in and of itself, is a useless measure. Ability and desire are the appropriate benchmarks.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Pekka
padillah, sure, but you see it's not trivial, that the thumb example is analytical thinking per se. I know what you're after, I just disagree your example being part of it

I must say I like my class diagram reference myself. It's a little more of a direct reference than the "thumb and hammer".

And I don't mean to trivialise the definition should that be your area of expertise. I was wrong in switching words like I did.

Tom P.

[Pekka]

Miller, yeah, but you still presented it wrogn in your earlier post.

padillah, don't be sorry, I'm not accusing you of anything.

My point is, I would look harder at "I hit my thumb wiht a hammer and it hurts, I should never do it again".

Ok, the problem is, this is similar to "if I have one apple and my friend has one apple, we have 2 apples together". While this is mathematics, it still isn't a very good example and debatable.

Would it be more logical to, for example realize, that hitting my thumb with an object hurts, so I should not hit my thumb with an object that is made if this material and is this heavy, or at least not this hard? A small tap won't hurt. So, when I have a rock in my hand, I can _reason_ that the hammer hurt, this is bound to hurt as well if I repeat the same action as before. That would be logical thinking, because you can see a pattern.

If a pattern is merely the first hammer example, I mean.. sure, but to see a pattern, those two might still be connected. As in, everytime I cough, I pee a little in my pants. So I should remove my pants before I cough? It's not just recognizing the cause and effect, make it a pattern and do the 'right thing'. That's hardly the very idea of logic

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Based on how badly other people do in physics and how well physicists do in other things.

Most importantly, based on where other people fail at physics and where physicists fail at other things.

Hmm-- based on your personal views right ?? Anyway, I'll leave that part alone.


Lets assume ( without accepting) for the moment that you are corrects and physics is the most intellectually challenging pursuit out there. Why would it NECESSARILY follow that the best and brightest would choose that discipline.


For example

1. Is physics particularly remunerative compared to other pursuits the best and brightest could undertake?

2. Do physicists enjoy social acclaim or other rewards?

3. Do you think all the best and brightest are even interested in physics.

etc etc.


Could it not be that the very most intelligent folks might be in professions which may be filled with lots of folks that are not so intelligent. The real geniuses figured out that they can easily make a fortune by being so much smarter than everyone else at gas trading or stock brokering or whatever. They then enjoys lots of time off with their beautiful spouse and kids and read other stuff -- like high level physics publications for the pure enjoyment of it


Seriously-- you are operating on a flawed premise that the most intelligent people will pursue the most intellectually demanding fields. Many people, even highly intelligent ones, would choose otherwise.

[KrazyHorse]

assume that the pinnacle of any field requires the same IQ

Errr...no.

[KrazyHorse]

Why would it NECESSARILY follow that the best and brightest would choose that discipline.

Because those who are able tend to want to use that ability at the highest level.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Pekka
My point is, I would look harder at "I hit my thumb wiht a hammer and it hurts, I should never do it again".

Ok, the problem is, this is similar to "if I have one apple and my friend has one apple, we have 2 apples together". While this is mathematics, it still isn't a very good example and debatable.

I fail to see why. For my purpose it includes math and is therefore unsuitable but why would it be a bad example of logic?

Would it be more logical to, for example realize, that hitting my thumb with an object hurts, so I should not hit my thumb with an object that is made if this material and is this heavy, or at least not this hard? A small tap won't hurt. So, when I have a rock in my hand, I can _reason_ that the hammer hurt, this is bound to hurt as well if I repeat the same action as before. That would be logical thinking, because you can see a pattern.

Ah, this I regard more as 'Emergent thinking' and 'Pattern Recognition', not just logic. Logic can be summed up in a single step, "You have mud on your shoes therefore you have recently walked in mud". However to deduce that your job is around mud because there are several layers of mud on your workboots is pattern recognition.

If a pattern is merely the first hammer example, I mean.. sure, but to see a pattern, those two might still be connected. As in, everytime I cough, I pee a little in my pants. So I should remove my pants before I cough? It's not just recognizing the cause and effect, make it a pattern and do the 'right thing'. That's hardly the very idea of logic

I was following you until this paragraph. I have no idea what this paragraph is supposed to communicate. That logic can help you do the right thing? That you shouldn't pee your pants? What? That logic helps you identify patterns and their paternistic results?

I don't get it.

Tom P.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

assume that the pinnacle of any field requires the same IQ

Errr...no.

Wow, what a sign of a high analytic ability. I didnt assert that was the case. ( I think a fair empirical judgement of that question is problematic - wed have to judge the intellectual pinnacle of each field) I said lets assume it and see what follows. Lets see if we can get from that assumption to the empirical result you claim - that on average, physicists are smarter. If we CAN get that result, than that observation (higher average IQ in fisiks depts) is consistent with my assumption (equality at the pinnacle), and so does not imply the negation of my assumption.


We do analyses like that in economics all the time - I was under the impression people used analogous approaches in physics.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why would it NECESSARILY follow that the best and brightest would choose that discipline.

Because those who are able tend to want to use that ability at the highest level.

Without regard to compensation both monetary and (as flubber quite properly includes) non-monetary?

I think you are incorrect.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why would it NECESSARILY follow that the best and brightest would choose that discipline.

Because those who are able tend to want to use that ability at the highest level.

Another faulty premise .. . I assume you see physics as the highest level?

Some people want money, fame, a family or a comfortable life. Can you deny this?

Can you deny that a person valuing these things might choose some other field than physics? They are intelligent in all aspects of their life and do not enjoy the thought of what a life of high-level physics would bring.


I honestly don't know but I assume some physicists do very very very well financially. But as a profession how does it stack up once you get past your view that its the elite of intellectual pursuits?

[padillah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why would it NECESSARILY follow that the best and brightest would choose that discipline.

Because those who are able tend to want to use that ability at the highest level.

This simply assumes that physics is the highest form of intelectual thinking. You've now crafted a circular argument.

Physics is the brightest discipline because physics has the brightest people in it because bright people want to get the most out of their ability and physics is the brightest discipline.

That kind of argument is self-fulfilling and based on flawed logic (at best).

Not gonna work.

Tom P.

EDIT: You might want to leave the 'logic' argument to Pekka. You're gonna have your hands full enough defending this.