Research around IQ can reliably make predictions based on the measurement of IQ. So, that means two things: - the research is well defined enough that you can

Research around IQ can reliably make predictions based on the measurement of IQ. So, that means two things: - the research is well defined enough that you can do an experiment to disprove it - most of the research has not been successfully disproved, even though many tried Now, whether that means that IQ exists and what it means for things to exist is a different discussion. It terms of philosophy of science, it is the distinction between relativistic empiricists and absolutistic empiricists. Just because you found a correlation, does that also inform you about the true nature of things? If formula's pretending the world is made out of strings correctly predict what would happen to some extend, does that mean the world is made out of strings? In the case of EQ, it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory. For that, it would need to be formalized to such an extent that it would make a objectively measurable prediction. Which we can then all try to disprove by measurement. If we don't even have the chance to disprove it, it's not a scientific theory in the first place.