4 ms·

> Just because something is a good predictor doesn't make it scientific. What does it mean for a thing to be scientific? > In those exceptions, it was general

> Just because something is a good predictor doesn't make it scientific. What does it mean for a thing to be scientific? > In those exceptions, it was generally found that wealth of parents played a much bigger role in future success than IQ. You are talking about very long term success. It is somewhat obvious that wealth you are born into should be an important factor for overall success. I'm talking about shorter term success, like job performance.

otalp 8y ago
To be scientific would require proving a definite causal relationship between IQ and intelligence, while also convincingly proving that intelligence can be measured with a number
- feanaro 8y ago
  Why does it have to be causal? A variable can be a real predictor of another without any of them causing the other one (for instance, they may have a common cause). That doesn't mean the predictor is of any less value. I would say that results on certain cognitive ability tests (i.e. "IQ tests") being at least a moderately good predictor for future performance in certain human activities is a rather well proven fact. For instance, the correlation between an IQ score and future job performance on a job with complex requirements is about 0.5. Of course, that does not mean the relationship is 1-to-1 and that it is a perfect predictor (which it obviously isn't).
  - vmh1928 8y ago
    Finding bear poop on the trail is a predictor of bear activity, not a cause of the bear.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      I vehemently agree, as a careful reading of my previous comment tells.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > To be scientific would require proving a definite causal relationship between IQ and intelligence That's not how science works. A scientific theory includes a hypothesis with a causal explanation, but science doesn't deal in “definite causal relationships”, but in empirically useful models which only get viewed as approximating definite causal relations with age and lack of a better (simpler and/or with broader explanatory power) model being discovered.

otalp 8y ago

To be scientific would require proving a definite causal relationship between IQ and intelligence, while also convincingly proving that intelligence can be measured with a number

feanaro 8y ago
Why does it have to be causal? A variable can be a real predictor of another without any of them causing the other one (for instance, they may have a common cause). That doesn't mean the predictor is of any less value. I would say that results on certain cognitive ability tests (i.e. "IQ tests") being at least a moderately good predictor for future performance in certain human activities is a rather well proven fact. For instance, the correlation between an IQ score and future job performance on a job with complex requirements is about 0.5. Of course, that does not mean the relationship is 1-to-1 and that it is a perfect predictor (which it obviously isn't).
- vmh1928 8y ago
  Finding bear poop on the trail is a predictor of bear activity, not a cause of the bear.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    I vehemently agree, as a careful reading of my previous comment tells.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> To be scientific would require proving a definite causal relationship between IQ and intelligence That's not how science works. A scientific theory includes a hypothesis with a causal explanation, but science doesn't deal in “definite causal relationships”, but in empirically useful models which only get viewed as approximating definite causal relations with age and lack of a better (simpler and/or with broader explanatory power) model being discovered.