<a href =http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-80790/Index.htm>Estimated IQs of some of the Greatest Geniuses</a>

excerpt

Philosophers (22) average IQ 160; Scientists (39) 159; Fiction writers (53) 152; Statesmen (43) 150; Musicians (11) 149; Artists (13) 153; Soldiers (27) 136.



As a curiosity it can be mentioned that the famous english philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell sometimes interpreted Nietzsche's overman as a person with an IQ of at least 180 (Actually Russell considered himself to have this IQ!). I read in some paper that Einstein , regarded as the prototype for a genius, may "only" have had just above 160 .

Why do you think Philosphers have the highest score?
What faculties are they using that inspire such results?

I wouldn't be surprised if those who designed the tests for IQ used measurements and qualities that were biased towards higher ranking of those who would consider themselves as philosophers.

Sometimes i think that i ve a high IQ (ok i am not a philospher but i think everyone has a philosopher in themselves and it needs to be waken up) Then i look around and realize that other people are so much more smarter than me because they are happy. They get happy from simple things and dont question things like me. Instead of spending their time here on this board and reading every single topic they talk about football or girls with their friends (i do that too actually) and then go to bed without thinking about "who am i" or this kind of things. They just live a simple life and dont question things. So, who is smarter now? We, who sepend this short life with asking questions or other people who just enjoy their time and dont care about the rest? :bugeye:

I'm going to have to take Socrates's side on this one.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

The criteria used to "estimate" the IQs of past famous people referred to here were so flawed that the results are meaningless.

Some people know more then others. High inventivity and the influence of these people on the history can be look at statistiaccally. (as the site does). In schools they sometimes do not test gifted children by putting in the front of them a paper which they are supposed to fill with answers on unintersting questions. They look how these children built their sentences an what is the structure of treir arguments...etc. These methods showed pretty acurate in establishing estimation IQ. When the same children were later tested on real IQ test the result largely cpomplied with erlier assesement. Therefor I believe you can assess (proximitely) an IQ of a person if his writings are available. (e.g. the claim that Eistein had "only" 160 IQ I have seen more times at differen sites).


I consider philosophy more difficult than the maths because in philosophy you have a huge field which you must handel satisfactorily (all must be related to all else). In maths you can establish an area and tackle it and then enlarge it or add an another area.

well I suppose as I have read at this forum before, that the maths guys and the physics guys don't like the infinite or the subjective where as the philosopher tends to deal allways with the infinite and the subjective:)

Originally posted by ProCop
Therefore I believe you can assess (proximitely) an IQ of a person if his writings are available. (e.g. the claim that Eistein had "only" 160 IQ I have seen more times at differen sites).
Even if it could be done, it was not in the specific instance this site gives:

"In 1926, psychologist Dr. Catherine Morris Cox - who had been assisted by Dr. Lewis M. Terman, Dr. Florence L. Goodenaugh, and Dr. Kate Gordon - published a study "of the most eminent men and women" who had lived between 1450 and 1850 to estimate what their IQs might have been."


I've seen these numbers at quite a few sites, probably because its fun to compare the IQs of famous people, but the methodology used by these individuals, amounted essentially to educated guessing, and failed to take into account a number of factors, one of which was the fact that for some of these people, we just don't know what they did in childhood. Such people were just given a lower score. On top of this, the approach to IQ used then was flawed, so the results would be questionable even if they'd sat down with these people and tested them personally.

Originally posted by ProCop
I consider philosophy more difficult than the maths because in philosophy you have a huge field which you must handel satisfactorily (all must be related to all else). In maths you can establish an area and tackle it and then enlarge it or add an another area.
I agree, philosophy is definitely more difficult.

Originally posted by Overdose
Sometimes i think that i ve a high IQ (ok i am not a philospher but i think everyone has a philosopher in themselves and it needs to be waken up) Then i look around and realize that other people are so much more smarter than me because they are happy. They get happy from simple things and dont question things like me. Instead of spending their time here on this board and reading every single topic they talk about football or girls with their friends (i do that too actually) and then go to bed without thinking about "who am i" or this kind of things. They just live a simple life and dont question things. So, who is smarter now? We, who sepend this short life with asking questions or other people who just enjoy their time and dont care about the rest? :bugeye:

Some brains just need quality feed. That's not easily awailable. You have to go to some length to get it. (cq dr. Faust)

that may explain why we have so many Ph.ds.

An average IQ of 160 for a whole group? Impossible.

Philosophy is not harder than math. In fact they're pretty similar except one uses a specially designed more sophisticated language and is more abstract.

It's interesting that there were more scientists listed than philosophers. Even if philosophy was harder that might indicate smart people recognize science is a more useful enterprise. For instance the very fact you state that one can make more progress makes it seem to me someone who wants to contribute would do math not philosophy.

Then again someone who wanted to be famous would sing crappy pop, so humans on average apparently have bad taste and all human opinions (like mine) are quite suspect.

It is harder because philosophy is built upon broad knowledge basis but math can be itsown, so a young can be a mathematian, but seldom a successful philosopher. The biggest should take more time to cook.

Originally posted by scilosopher
Philosophy is not harder than math.I concur.Originally posted by scilosopher
In fact they're pretty similar except one uses a specially designed more sophisticated language and is more abstract.I would say that the similarities end at the motivating idea that both fields share: the exploration of the constructs of the mind.

Originally posted by scilosopher
For instance the very fact you state that one can make more progress makes it seem to me someone who wants to contribute would do math not philosophy. Again, I agree. That makes it 2/2. Thankfully, there's at least one person with some who applied some logic to the issue of the thread.
Originally posted by Quantum Quack
well I suppose as I have read at this forum before, that the maths guys and the physics guys don't like the infiniteIf Mathematicians and Physicists "[didn't] like "the infinite" then they would avoid dealing with integrals and infinite limits. However they do not, thus your claim is invalid.Originally posted by Quantum Quack
or the subjective Subjectivity is a lost cause in the Physical Sciences, and essentially a nonexistent one in Mathematics. Why? Simply because there are few reliable ways to reliably deal with a structure that doesn't have well defined behavior, or that one assumes will have well-defined behavior when experimental data is taken. (Note: To those who are about to reply "Quantum Mechanics contradicts your logic!", it doesn't. Probabilities and the constructs that describe them are indicators of well defined behavior.)Originally posted by Quantum Quack
where as the philosopher tends to deal allways with the infinite and the subjective:)Lifting an idea from scilosopher's post, I simply state "What do Philosophers have to show for it?".Originally posted by jps
I agree, philosophy is definitely more difficult. Support your assertion. Simply dealing with a subjectively (there goes that word again) "broader" field of discourse would only be grounds for superiority if Philosophers used methods whose rigor met or surpassed that of Mathematicians. Currently, they do not, so your justification is invalid.Originally posted by yinyinwang
It is harder because philosophy is built upon broad knowledge basis but math can be itsown Mathematics is built upon a well-defined, axiomatic knowledge basis, thus it is more compact. The knowledge base for Philosophy is so large because it has little rigorous foundation, and few definite answers, both factors contributing to the "murkiness" of the basis. Thus, simply because the basis is large doesn't mean Philosophy is "harder". In fact, this scarcity of proper definitions allows one to contest the pillars rather easily, and add one's ideas to the "basis" with considerably less effort than is required in Mathematics.Originally posted by yinyinwang
so a young can be a mathematian, but seldom a successful philosopher. I think you have it backwards. I contest that the logical rigor that supports Mathematics lends easily to Philosophical pursuits, but the scarcity of such structure in Philosophy presents a rather large barrier to students of Philosophy who wish to study Mathematics.

Dapthar
/Mathematics is built upon a well-defined, axiomatic knowledge basis, thus it is more compact. The knowledge base for Philosophy is so large because it has little rigorous foundation, and few definite answers, both factors contributing to the "murkiness" of the basis. Thus, simply because the basis is large doesn't mean Philosophy is "harder". In fact, this scarcity of proper definitions allows one to contest the pillars rather easily, and add one's ideas to the "basis" with considerably less effort than is required in Mathematics./
"axiomatic" means no constrain. you don't have to care much about the physical reality.
Have we ever seen a young successful philosopher who at least built a phi-structure of understanding?
How many young math men have we seen?
The history performance tells that we have considerablly less philosopher than any other professions, why? And a successful profession become a philosopher in some way because they have to think that way. The ambiguity of the job is the logic dead-corner, which baffles mathman.
Yes, any one can have his life philosophy and can challeng the pillar, that makes a success more difficult because there are limitless examiners around to attack you from all directions. As a mathman, the only thing you care is self-consistancy. You can assume the sun is made up of gold as a mathman, but if you do so as a phi-man, you become everybody's laugh stuff. That is what we say,depicting a ghost is easy but a cow is far more difficult.
Yes a philosopher will not be easy to adapt to any profession, not because of the difficulty but the professional glossary. I think a phi-concept is far more difficult to grasp than a math one since you said they are"axiomatic".
How much effort is dependent on how much you want to gain, not the subject.

Dapthar
/I think you have it backwards. I contest that the logical rigor that supports Mathematics lends easily to Philosophical pursuits, but the scarcity of such structure in Philosophy presents a rather large barrier to students of Philosophy who wish to study Mathematics./
When I can solve a math problem, I have no idea of philosophy, not to mention to answer a question.

In the domain of philosophy you can ask: What is mathematics?
Can you ask in the domain of mathematics: What is philosophy?

Mathematics is a subordinate of philosophy. Mastering a subdomain compared to the mastering in of the whole domain speaks for itself (at least for some).

It could be said that "mathematics is a construct "of" the mind and Philosophy is a "contruct" about the mind"

Oops!! Did I just say that? Or did I think it? Maybe both or all or maybe I just imagined the whole thing?

Hi Mom!!
:)

I find IQ dubious. However, it's worth nothing that the inspiration for Einstein's theories - as credited by Einstein himself - was Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher generally considered to score in the 180s on hypothetical IQ tests.

We will discuss Einstein's plagiarism elsewhere perhaps.

Math and science both did grow out of philosophy, but that does not mean philosophers are experts at math and science while mathematicians and scientists don't understand philosophy.

I personally think the fact that the greatest minds did tend to be people who studied and thought about many different fields - math, science, philosopy, art, is possibly causal not consequential. If you exercise all the different basal abilities of your brain they improve and together they make your brain able to attack a question from many different angles, which brings out all sorts of different features that aren't initially apparent.

Presumably if one is harder than the other it's as much a reflection of the amount of effort people have put into it than the inherent difficulty. I have no doubt there are people out there who are smarter than me and could come up with either math or philiosophy I didn't understand. I think the difficulty level of the material would therefore be set by those who do it rather than what they are trying to do (as well as the amount of time and energy they pt into doing it).

Originally posted by yinyinwang
"axiomatic" means no constrain.You sure that you don't want to rethink this statement before trying to support it? By the nature of an axiomatic system, a statement is only considered to be true if it is a logical consequence of the axioms, otherwise, it is false, or has no truth value.Originally posted by yinyinwang
you don't have to care much about the physical reality. Your point being? A Philosopher is not one to tout physical reality, since many of their paradoxes simply cannot exist in a physical reality, and many of them deny the existence of said reality, so this point is one "against" both Mathematics and Philosophy.Originally posted by yinyinwang
Have we ever seen a young successful philosopher who at least built a phi-structure of understanding? I don't know if one exists. I haven't ever heard of one, but then I haven't done much searching for said Philosophers.Originally posted by yinyinwang
How many young math men have we seen? Quite a few, considering until a few years ago, a Mathematician's career was essentially considered finished by age 40, i.e. if they haven't discovered something by then, they never will. It is only recently with Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (he was over 40 when it was completed) that this idea began to change.Originally posted by yinyinwang
The history performance tells that we have considerablly less philosopher than any other professions, why? And a successful profession become a philosopher in some way because they have to think that way. You know, I was actually thinking of using a similar "rarity argument" to support my claims about Mathematics, but I did not, since I realized that this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. To take a logical extension of your argument, there are less postal workers than office workers, and by your logic, that implies that being a postal worker is more intellectually demanding, a fallacy. Thus, your line of reasoning is incorrect.Originally posted by yinyinwang
Yes, any one can have his life philosophy and can challeng the pillar, that makes a success more difficult because there are limitless examiners around to attack you from all directions.To the contrary, it makes it easier. Any point with a shred of truth to it can be argued just as well as an established idea, since there is no experimental evidence or previous standards to conform to, i.e. too much freedom, and too little structure makes a subject rather easy.Originally posted by yinyinwang
As a mathman, the only thing you care is self-consistancy. You can assume the sun is made up of gold as a mathman, ... It is true that in Mathematics, one is primarily concerned with self-consistency, since it is a measure of the strength of one's logic, but if one's constructs don't do something useful (In the context of Mathematics) then there isn't much point to it. Again, your example doesn't work either, since anything having to do with physical reality is not a concern of Mathematics. Frankly, if assuming the sun is made of gold led to an interesting solution of a long-standing problem, e.g. the Riemann Hypothesis, then Mathematicians would have no problem doing so.Originally posted by yinyinwang
... but if you do so as a phi-man, you become everybody's laugh stuff. Do you realize you are contradicting yourself here? You were just lauding the freedom of Philosophy, and now are touting its system of checks and balances?

I could create a philosophical paradox that states the sun is composed of a substance that only looks like Hydrogen and Helium to our instruments, but is actually composed of tiny strings of energy that no device can currently detect, (replacing "tiny strings of energy" with "tiny fragments of gold" will yield an analogue to your original example), but every measuring device that exists today cannot detect them, and this philosophical "paradox" currently has no resolution. It doesn't mean that it has any less validity since it goes against "Philosophical common sense", so even your absurd argument holds as much Philosophical validity as current Physics research.Originally posted by yinyinwang
Yes a philosopher will not be easy to adapt to any profession, not because of the difficulty but the professional glossary. So you're stating that Philosophers posses the proper tools to adapt to other fields, and the only barrier are the technical terms? Are you serious? Philosophy is not that efficient of an exercise for one's mind. The concepts in Mathematics are what present the difficulty, not the terminology, and I assert that Philosophy doesn't prepare one for the mental acrobatics that Mathematics requires.Originally posted by yinyinwang
I think a phi-concept is far more difficult to grasp than a math one since you said they are"axiomatic". Yes, but "axiomatic" &ne; easy. In Philosophy, almost all interpretations are equally valid, but this is not true in Mathematics. If one doesn't understand the definition of a limit, there is no "alternate and equally valid" idea to revert to, granted, there are certain pictures one can draw, and an intuitive notion is extremely helpful, but it all hinges upon the definition, and if one can't find some way to understand that definition, then you're out of luck.Originally posted by yinyinwang
How much effort is dependent on how much you want to gain, not the subject. To the contrary, the effort one must put in to a field to understand it is directly proportional to the difficult of the subject.Originally posted by ProCop
In the domain of philosophy you can ask: What is mathematics?
Can you ask in the domain of mathematics: What is philosophy? No, one cannot. But your comparison is flawed, since you biased it towards, you guessed it, Philosophy. Just as one cannot ask "What is philosophy?" in Mathematics, one cannot ask "What are the solutions of x²-5x+6=0?" in Philosophy.Originally posted by ProCop
Mathematics is a subordinate of philosophy.Incorrect. See why below.Originally posted by ProCop
Mastering a subdomain compared to the mastering in of the whole domain speaks for itself (at least for some). Then mastery of Philosophy should imply mastery of Mathematics, however, it obviously does not, thus, Mathematics is not a subset of Philosophy. However, mastery of Mathematics implies a great deal of familiarity with logic, and thus, a mastery of certain aspects of Philosophy.Originally posted by scilosopher
I personally think the fact that the greatest minds did tend to be people who studied and thought about many different fields - math, science, philosopy, art, is possibly causal not consequential.From this statement, I tend to get the impression that you are defining a "[great] mind" as one that is versed in many fields, however, this is not necessarily the case. Newton (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Newton.html) was a great mind, but does that make Cauchy (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Cauchy.html), Ramanujan (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ramanujan.html), or Euler (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Euler.html), whose efforts were largely in the subject of Mathematics, not great minds? Are Schrödinger (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Schrodinger.html), and Einstein (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html) lesser minds since they dedicated their efforts to Physics? Certainly not.(The links are to brief biographies of the historical personalities in question. I recommend that all the posters in the thread at least skim them, and refer to their host site; http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BiogIndex.html; for a rather comprehensive collection of biographies of Mathematicians, Physicists, and other notable scientists. To those who are wondering, no, I have no vested interest in the site, I just felt like sharing a useful link.)Originally posted by scilosopher
If you exercise all the different basal abilities of your brain they improve and together they make your brain able to attack a question from many different angles, which brings out all sorts of different features that aren't initially apparent.True, however it is not necessary to work in many different fields to achieve this result. See the examples above.Originally posted by scilosopher
I think the difficulty level of the material would therefore be set by those who do it rather than what they are trying to do (as well as the amount of time and energy they pt into doing it).Not necessarily. Material can still be difficult for those who have studied it their whole lives, simply because it requires one to use so many aspects of one's mental faculties, and material can be difficult simply because those who are working on it choose to unnecessarily complicate their subject. I contest that the former is the case for Mathematics, and the latter is the case for Philosophy.

May be this has been already stated but it could be said that the reason that Philosphers have higher IQ's ( assumption) is that simply every one is in some way a philospher and as it so happens some of these philosphers are great mathematicians as well.

So a guy sits down who happens to be both and there fore scores higher that someone who is only specialised in math.

IQ tests if I am not mistaken take in a varity of specialist attributes and obviously if a person is skilled in all of them then the score is going to be higher.

For example I consider my speciality Dimensional imagination, in that I can visualise dimension ( not just the 4 d type but like looking in a mirror sideways type) and I think that if there were tests that showed the IQ level of this then I would score quite highly.

But by the same token I have very little mathematical ability but some reasonable philosphical abilty so therefore in the tests suggested by the thread starter I would fail to score much at all may be a 120 if I am lucky. ( luck....vat is dis ting called luck)

So I simply feel that if a philospher also has an interest and skill in math then he will score higher. Does it have to be any more comlesx than that?

No, one cannot. But your comparison is flawed, since you biased it towards, you guessed it, Philosophy. Just as one cannot ask "What is philosophy?" in Mathematics, one cannot ask "What are the solutions of x2-5x+6=0?" in Philosophy.

x2-5x+6=0? in philosophical terms: Two idiots got into a figth with another five idiots to gain the access to six inteligent virgins. How many idiots got laid? How many inteligent virgins are there for one idiot? What is the ratio of idiot/inteligent virgins in the world? In the universe? In the multiverse?

Dapthar:
I should make a few points clear first
1,a debate will help reach understanding, so ?v?is not important, but if you feel bad at talking to two or more, I can wait later.
2,IQ is not a tell-all method in measureing people's inteligence, I only take it as a reference.
3,I doubt the statistics by this thread because who can be called a phi-man is highly questionable.
4,difficulty exists in any profession and can deter any one, for instance, walking is simple but can you walk on hands, on one hand? on a finger? The same is true with math, you can build a math maze that no one can solve or simply there is no solution to it, but this is not an indication of wisdom.

Philosophy as a discipline is more intelectually demanding because it has not (does not claim to have) one basic truth on which it is/would be based. We have contradicting/oposing philosophies which are worth of studying/knowing and generally encreasing the knowledge of the manking (incl. that of the mathematicians). Philosophic concepts are based on the coherence of their argument suggesting <i>possible</i> explanation about (some) phenomena. Mathematics is a construct which relays on the <i>proving</i> of the validity of concepts.

Originally posted by ProCop
x²-5x+6=0? in philosophical terms: .... You're kidding, right? Philosophy simply cannot answer that question, since it does not have the tools to do so. Your "answer" simply illustrates this fact. By the way, the proper answers are x = 3 and x = 2 since x²-5x+6 = (x-3)(x-2). Also, in general, x²&ne;2x, therefore your initial "interpretation" beginning with "two idiots ..." is incorrect.Originally posted by yinyinwang
Dapthar:
I should make a few points clear first
1,a debate will help reach understanding, so ?v?is not important, ...I was simply using it as a colloquial way to indicate the number of people supporting each side of the debate. Nothing more.Originally posted by yinyinwang
but if you feel bad at talking to two or more, I can wait later.No need to. I have no problem with debating both of you simultaneously.

On that note, if there is anyone else besides the posters in this thread who disagree with any part of my argument, please feel free to post an argument to the contrary. I have no aversions to debating multiple people at once, for it simply improves my debate skills to do so.Originally posted by yinyinwang
2,IQ is not a tell-all method in measureing people's inteligence, I only take it as a reference.I on the other hand, do not think highly enough of it to even use it as a reference.Originally posted by yinyinwang
3,I doubt the statistics by this thread because who can be called a phi-man is highly questionable.I don't really get what you're saying here, perhaps that your original "rarity" argument was flawed since the number of people in a field is at best a mediocre indicator of its difficulty? Something else perhaps?Originally posted by yinyinwang
4,difficulty exists in any profession and can deter any one, for instance, walking is simple but can you walk on hands, on one hand? on a finger? The same is true with math, you can build a math maze that no one can solve or simply there is no solution to it, but this is not an indication of wisdom.Neither is formulation of a Philosophical paradox, which is an analogue of the example you are trying to use. Again, a moot point, for it goes "against" both Mathematics and Philosophy.

I hope that you are going to return to supporting your ideas now that you are done with this aside.Originally posted by ProCop
Philosophy as a discipline is more intelectually demanding because it has not (does not claim to have) one basic truth on which it is/would be based.My response to this point is essentially that "lack of one basic truth" makes the discipline easier since all viewpoints that have any shred of support can be argued as successfully as those which have been proven to be true time and again. Thus, there is no "filter", no separation of the "wheat" from the "chaff", creating a swamp of equally valid ideas.

If Mathematics had followed this world view, no one would have gotten past the definition of addition, since people would have been constantly arguing over whether or not "1+1=2", and as you can see, by looking at the thread entitled "Why does 1+1=2? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18574)", to this day, Philosophers still waste their time discussing "problems" that were resolved millennia ago due to the lack of a proper filtering mechanism for their field.Originally posted by ProCop
We have contradicting/oposing philosophies which are worth of studying/knowing and generally encreasing the knowledge of the manking (incl. that of the mathematicians).I suggest you supply some examples to support your claims, since aside from the "Philosophical assumption" that the axioms are assumed to be true, I see no example of where Philosophy has aided Mathematics. Surely, it is not in the concept of a number, since as one can see, there is still no agreement among Philosophers as to what a number is. Thus, aside from the statement that "There is no absolute truth", I can see no other places where Philosophy has helped, or will ever help Mathematics in the future, but perhaps you have an example that suggests the contrary.Originally posted by ProCop
Philosophic concepts are based on the coherence of their argument suggesting <i>possible</i> explanation about (some) phenomena. Mathematics is a construct which relays on the <i>proving</i> of the validity of concepts.This dichotomy is why I contest that Mathematics is superior to Philosophy. In a field, if one is not able to rigorously assess the validity of ideas, those in the field will rarely achieve anything that can be classified as an advancement by anyone.

To put it succinctly: The lack of a proper ideological "filtering system" in Philosophy results in the field amounting to little other than the expenditure of effort for little or no gain. Essentially, the field is a colossal waste of energy and time, and these resources that could be put to more productive use in the field of Mathematics.

(Note: The large blue text's purpose is simply to draw attention to those posters who may simply may be skimming the thread, in hopes of "getting a message out to the masses" as it were, and hopefully increasing interest in said thread. It is not meant to represent "anger" or "shouting" as per the traditional meaning of large colored text on the internet.)

Dapthar,
I didn't say that they had to have performed in all those fields, but simply "who studied and thought about many different fields".

I did not question the greatness of those that did not, but simply highlight the fact that the act of doing so might help a person's mind reach greatness.

I never claimed that it was necessary to work in many fields to be able to look at something from multiple perspectives (just that it helped).

Regarding my claim on the difficulty of the material you have again misunderstood what I meant, though in this case I was quite vague and should have anticipated misunderstanding. Given your general approach I hesitate to explain as I don't have the patience to put my ideas in a form that would be resistant to your general style of discussion (particularly because you make many faulty inferences which I would not want to have to systematically state I don't mean).

It is an easy road in debate to systematically misunderstand what someone says to attempt to make them seem incorrect or subordinate to oneself in reasoning, but this is a counter-productive act that makes the act of debate less meaningful. Although debating is done competitively the main point is to reach a conclusion about some topic.

Your posts don't put forward any thesis or point, they just nit-pick at what others have said without any attempt to move our collective understanding or the discussion forward. The very fact you seem to take pride in willy-nilly responding to multiple people at once and not trying to refine some general idea or line of reasoning makes me at least question if I would want to engage in such debate with yourself.

EDIT- actually I just read the very last blue part and the note and perhaps you do put forward points and may have some line of reasoning. However, it is clearly diluted by a tendency to focus on ill founded attacks (at least in my case, I'm not always sure exaclty what other people mean) which led me to running out of patience before I reached the end.

Field of mathematics is too limited to provide understanding/insight in/of the universe phenomenon as experienced by a conscious being. Surely the orderly behaviour of this phenomenon/universe must have a basis. The nature of this basis is an unanswered question of which an answer is needed (Phys/maths view is that it came into being from nothing in the Big Bang (in an uncentered explosion - is such a view/theory mathematics/physics or a philosophy by nature?) Further more in your model the man can be (and should your model be true) <i> will </I>be replaced by the computer because the computer, has higher mathematical faculty than the man and the man is less suited to exist in the universe than the maschinery is cq.<a href=http://www.kubrick2001.com/> Space Odyssey 2001</a>. Mathematical knowledge has put you in a capsule of an illusion that if you partial model is proved correct - then you understand everything. Such an incapsulation is not given too everybody as an option: there is more to be understood about the universe than its mathematics. Anyway the knowlege you got at school was largely structured by Aristotle, and you (I suppose) live under the democratic government composed on Plato' s ideas of the Republic...naturaly you can ignore that and concern yourself with the fact that you know for sure that 1+1 = 2). Sancta Simplicitas - the last words of Jan Hus (when he saw an old woman to bring a bundle of wood to his burning. ;))

All this hummdrumm may be a bit off topic about IQ testing but Procop, well said.

With no disrespect to the Mathematical fields I agree that sometimes the focus of ones enthuisiasm sometimes distorts the reality of what you are doing.

As with most specialities they require great devotion to be successful at and this deserves respect however when the illusions of granduer are shattered the specialist achieves "grounding" and a greater balance to their perspective.

It is possible to think of philosphy as a more generalistic field and mathematics as a more specific field. One requires intense focus on a particular area of interest ( maths) where as the other requires a more encompassing and generalistic view.

It could also be considered that philosophy is about everything and that everything includes mathematics.

/"axiomatic" means no constrain./
Dapthar
Quote/You sure that you don't want to rethink this statement before trying to support it? By the nature of an axiomatic system, a statement is only considered to be true if it is a logical consequence of the axioms, otherwise, it is false, or has no truth value./
The proposition or axiom has no constrains, not any statement. And if any statement is true depends on what kind of logics you are following, so with the same subject, there are different math statements, for example, we have many geometries, Euclidean or non.

/you don't have to care much about the physical reality. /
Dapthar
Quote/Your point being? A Philosopher is not one to tout physical reality, since many of their paradoxes simply cannot exist in a physical reality, and many of them deny the existence of said reality, so this point is one "against" both Mathematics and Philosophy./
Not much life experience or wisdom is needed to start math.
Philosophy serve many purposes. Paradox is a kind of training tricks, or help thinking, not necessarily true to reality. But phi-statement is "meant" to be true, even though there is no guarantee. But a math statement is not meant to be true to reality, only to its only math system.
And the philisophy which deny reality actually means nonreality is the reality.

/The history performance tells that we have considerablly less philosopher than any other professions, why? And a successful profession become a philosopher in some way because they have to think that way. /
Dapthar
Quote/You know, I was actually thinking of using a similar "rarity argument" to support my claims about Mathematics, but I did not, since I realized that this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. To take a logical extension of your argument, there are less postal workers than office workers, and by your logic, that implies that being a postal worker is more intellectually demanding, a fallacy. Thus, your line of reasoning is incorrect./

You don't quite undertand the problem, we are not in short supply of Phi-man, but short of young ones.

maybe it's just that there is more money to be got for a math person than a philosopher.

Not much money in philosophy hey?

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
maybe it's just that there is more money to be got for a math person than a philosopher.

Not much money in philosophy hey?

In the Middle Ages people believed that virtue was its own reward (something in the sense that living a honest and chaste live was in itself rewarding - you didn't need any other rewards besides that) I wonder if it would be applyable to knowing/knowledge. Knowing a lot could be reward in itself but...I would still prefer to get the half of this reward in Euros...

Yes, any one can have his life philosophy and can challeng the pillar, that makes a success more difficult because there are limitless examiners around to attack you from all directions.

Dapthar
Quote/To the contrary, it makes it easier. Any point with a shred of truth to it can be argued just as well as an established idea, since there is no experimental evidence or previous standards to conform to, i.e. too much freedom, and too little structure makes a subject rather easy./

I don't quite get what you mean. Do you mean that the phi-man are talking baseless things or without care for logics?
math use formula or symbol to argue or reason,
phi-man use langguang to do so most of the time because the case can not be generalised into a set of simple symbols and equations or > or <, that does not mean no reason or structure at all.

BTW: you don't have to scream to big blue to make a point.

As a mathman, the only thing you care is self-consistancy. You can assume the sun is made up of gold as a mathman, ...
Dapthar
Quote/It is true that in Mathematics, one is primarily concerned with self-consistency, since it is a measure of the strength of one's logic, but if one's constructs don't do something useful (In the context of Mathematics) then there isn't much point to it. Again, your example doesn't work either, since anything having to do with physical reality is not a concern of Mathematics. Frankly, if assuming the sun is made of gold led to an interesting solution of a long-standing problem, e.g. the Riemann Hypothesis, then Mathematicians would have no problem doing so./

A lot of math assumptions come as the abstractions from reality, or physical model, at least at the begining of its construction of any system, so you can not say that physical world has nothing to contribute to math, otherwise math become ghost depicting completely.

... but if you do so as a phi-man, you become everybody's laugh stuff.

Dapthar
Quote/Do you realize you are contradicting yourself here? You were just lauding the freedom of Philosophy, and now are touting its system of checks and balances? /

You are assuming that which is not true. See above.

Dapthar
Quote/I could create a philosophical paradox that states the sun is composed of a substance that only looks like Hydrogen and Helium to our instruments, but is actually composed of tiny strings of energy that no device can currently detect, (replacing "tiny strings of energy" with "tiny fragments of gold" will yield an analogue to your original example), but every measuring device that exists today cannot detect them, and this philosophical "paradox" currently has no resolution. It doesn't mean that it has any less validity since it goes against "Philosophical common sense", so even your absurd argument holds as much Philosophical validity as current Physics research./

You call it a paradox? Being so emotional does not help you think phi- or math-ly.(I hate long spelling)

Without physical evidences any statement remains as assumptions, not only phi- ones.
what do you mean by "Philosophical common sense"?

It is OK to believe in something strongly. Strong belief can take a good quick thinking mind to places where few have ever been before. I think that capacity combined with passion is the most wonderfull gift. Do not let the the front-wind which this gift brings as a by-product to take you down. Let it power you up.

P.

Yes a philosopher will not be easy to adapt to any profession, not because of the difficulty but the professional glossary.

Dapthar
Quote/So you're stating that Philosophers posses the proper tools to adapt to other fields, and the only barrier are the technical terms? Are you serious? Philosophy is not that efficient of an exercise for one's mind. The concepts in Mathematics are what present the difficulty, not the terminology, and I assert that Philosophy doesn't prepare one for the mental acrobatics that Mathematics requires./

Remember how the word "philosophy" comes from? A man with wisdom can do a better job in any profession.
Math is reputed as mind agility demanding. A laborman can not afford it. But mind agility is not enough for philosophy, transforming mind agility into wisdom needs other properties like sense of responsibility, being balanced emotionally, ie, dancing gracefully between subjectiveness and objectiveness, etc.

I think a phi-concept is far more difficult to grasp than a math one since you said they are"axiomatic".

Dapthar
quote/Yes, but "axiomatic" ¡Ù easy. In Philosophy, almost all interpretations are equally valid, but this is not true in Mathematics. If one doesn't understand the definition of a limit, there is no "alternate and equally valid" idea to revert to, granted, there are certain pictures one can draw, and an intuitive notion is extremely helpful, but it all hinges upon the definition, and if one can't find some way to understand that definition, then you're out of luck./

axiomatic=/=difficult, neither.
"In Philosophy, almost all interpretations are equally valid, but this is not true in Mathematics." That is funny.

That is why we call it like ghost-depicting, because the concept comes before the extensions.

How much effort is dependent on how much you want to gain, not the subject

Dapthar
Quote/To the contrary, the effort one must put in to a field to understand it is directly proportional to the difficult of the subject./

I did not see any "contrary" here. My statement is also proportional. But I would like to make it clearer. With the subject held the same, the efforts by different people are different to achieve the same degree of understanding. With the same effort, or studying hours if you agree and same subject, the degree varies.

3,I doubt the statistics by this thread because who can be called a phi-man is highly questionable.

Dapthar/quote/I don't really get what you're saying here, perhaps that your original "rarity" argument was flawed since the number of people in a field is at best a mediocre indicator of its difficulty? Something else perhaps?/

How would you judge a person as a phi-man or not, a book? a degree? a review? and how would you grade them as successful ones?

The number of participants in a game is decided by supply/demand of a mraket, but how many of them will become great is not. you can have a whole bunch of them being "mediocre".

4,difficulty exists in any profession and can deter any one, for instance, walking is simple but can you walk on hands, on one hand? on a finger? The same is true with math, you can build a math maze that no one can solve or simply there is no solution to it, but this is not an indication of wisdom.

Dapthar/quote/Neither is formulation of a Philosophical paradox, which is an analogue of the example you are trying to use. Again, a moot point, for it goes "against" both Mathematics and Philosophy.

I hope that you are going to return to supporting your ideas now that you are done with this aside./

I don't know if my answers are up to your satisfaction but feel free to ask.

Are you assuming phi as paradoxes or built on paradoxes?

i think i new scientific theory takes far more knowledge, creativity and understanding than coming up with a new philosopical argument or theory. the level of understanding that being a skilled scientist requires is far greater than that of a philosopher. anyone can make a philosophical argument. it takes many years of training and hard work to even skim the surface of understanding a science.

Originally posted by shrubby pegasus
i think i new scientific theory takes far more knowledge, creativity and understanding than coming up with a new philosopical argument or theory. the level of understanding that being a skilled scientist requires is far greater than that of a philosopher. anyone can make a philosophical argument. it takes many years of training and hard work to even skim the surface of understanding a science.
Comimg with an arguement is one, but with a system is another.

all philosopher haev are arguments. their impact is minimal. it is more of a personal exploration than anything.

Originally posted by shrubby pegasus
all philosopher haev are arguments. their impact is minimal. it is more of a personal exploration than anything.
Are you about to reduce this to slogan throwing?

if thats what i am doing, then i guess so. the depth of science is so much deeper than tat of philosophy. to make an impact in this realm requires a brilliance and foundation as well an insight into the world none before you have had. and when you are successful, it is irrefutable. this is the universe we are talking about. its truths are undeniable. regardless of the reasoning a philosopher may give, i can simply say that i dont buy his premise so everything else he says is moot. nothing a philosopher can ever say is universal.

Originally posted by shrubby pegasus
nothing a philosopher can ever say is universal.

Isn't that a universal statement? Does that mean it isn't true?

if thats what i am doing, then i guess so. the depth of science is so much deeper than tat of philosophy.

You cannot compare/meassure the depth of science (or philosophy) - though it would be interesting if it were possible eg. on a boek cover would be printed:
<B>READABILITY</b>:
minimaly required IQ = 125, recomender 135 optimal = 150

That way we would be able to asses the "depth" of the subject of the book. Untill then your statment is an poetic expression of a feeling (not usable in the realms of either science or philosophy).

to make an impact in this realm requires a brilliance and foundation as well an insight into the world none before you have had.

This is applicable not only to science but also to any kind of brilliancy (philosophy, art, sport, what ever). What impact do we make when we come to atletic field? or when we start to sing?


and when you are successful, it is irrefutable.

Not true. Take eg. flogiston theory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A392681) Widely believed true in the scientific world for a long time before it was disproved.

i think i new scientific theory takes far more knowledge, creativity and understanding than coming up with a new philosopical argument or theory. the level of understanding that being a skilled scientist requires is far greater than that of a philosopher. anyone can make a philosophical argument.

Also a statement which can be broadly applied to many fields/ activities: Everybody can draw a rabit but it doesn't make him a Rembrant.

its truths are undeniable. regardless of the reasoning a philosopher may give, i can simply say that i dont buy his premise so everything else he says is moot.

Let's take Descartes : Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am) - this is purely philosophical premise, you cannot disprove it. Can you?

Well, this took a little longer than I expected to finish, but after a couple more long replies have been dealt with, I will return to my regular posting habits. Enjoy.
It is an easy road in debate to systematically misunderstand what someone says to attempt to make them seem incorrect or subordinate to oneself in reasoning, but this is a counter-productive act that makes the act of debate less meaningful.That is when I interpreted your statement, I wrote: "From this statement, I tend to get the impression that...", so as to make it clear that I may actually be misinterpreting your post, and give you an opportunity to clarify your meaning.
However, it is clearly diluted by a tendency to focus on ill founded attacks (at least in my case, I'm not always sure exaclty what other people mean)Again, due partly to a misconception on your part and a lack of clarity on my part.
which led me to running out of patience before I reached the end.It happens to everyone sometimes.
Field of mathematics is too limited to provide understanding/insight in/of the universe phenomenon as experienced by a conscious being.Yes, one could say that, since it is not the goal of Mathematics to do so, however, it is akin to saying that a blender is too limited to make toast, i.e. it is not truly a fair comparison to say something is too limited to address a problem it was not designed to solve.
(Phys/maths view is that it came into being from nothing in the Big BangI do not feel it appropriate for me to speak on the current views regarding the universe in Physics, but I can state that how the universe came into being has no effect upon Mathematics, and Mathematics puts forth no such theory as to how the universe began, simply because it is not a concern of the field.
Further more in your model the man can be (and should your model be true).To my knowledge, I put forth no "model", but let's see where you take this.
<i> will </I>be replaced by the computer because the computer, has higher mathematical faculty than the man and the man is less suited to exist in the universe than the maschinery isDoubtful. Are ants less suited to live since they, (by most accounts) have less Mathematical prowess than humans? No. Do humans destroy ants because of this reason? Most likely not. Thus, one can see that your argument is flawed. In reality, until computers attain sentience, their theoretical Mathematical abilities will be far below that of humanity. Even sentience is no guarantee of Mathematical ability. Why? Ask anyone who claims to do poorly in Mathematics, and you'll find a sentient creature that does not posses considerable Mathematical skill.
Mathematical knowledge has put you in a capsule of an illusion that if you partial model is proved correct - then you understand everything.Proofs (Which I believe you are referring to, please correct me if I am wrong.) are based upon assumptions, i.e. axioms and definitions, which are assumed to be true. If one accepts these assumptions, then the "model" is complete.

Anyway the knowlege you got at school was largely structured by Aristotle,Unless Aristotle contributed to Mathematics in some way unknown to myself, I doubt it. Even if he did, it would be a contribution to the system of education in general, and not the field of Mathematics.
and you (I suppose) live under the democratic government composed on Plato' s ideas of the Republic...naturaly you can ignore that and concern yourself with the fact that you know for sure that 1+1 = 2).Again, you are missing the issue. I asked for an example of Philosophy aiding the field of Mathematics, not those who study it.
It could also be considered that philosophy is about everything and that everything includes mathematics.It could be said, but it is incorrect, for reasons already described earlier regarding subfields.
The proposition or axiom has no constrains, not any statement. And if any statement is true depends on what kind of logics you are following, so with the same subject, there are different math statements, for example, we have many geometries, Euclidean or non. This is correct. By "axiomatic" I thought you were referring to the axiomatic system, not the axioms themselves.

However, if the axioms are not what most would consider to be reasonable assumptions, then they are essentially useless. I could build an axiomatic system where all additions are off by 1, i.e. 1+1 would equal 3 instead of 2. Most likely, alternate versions of all other theorems that exist could be derived, but they would not be what almost any person who studies Mathematics would consider reasonable, since they were based on a premise most would consider false. Thus, your (implied) assertion of freedom of choice with the axioms is a bit off kilter. Not necessarily incorrect, but not truly reasonable. (Such is the English language, eh?)

You don't quite undertand the problem, we are not in short supply of Phi-man, but short of young ones. Ok, so I don't get the point you're driving at. Would you mind clarifying it? What is the relevance of the lack of young Philosophers?
maybe it's just that there is more money to be got for a math person than a philosopher.
Not much money in philosophy hey? I can assure you that almost no one embarks on a study of theoretical Mathematics because of financial reasons. Applied Mathematics is another story.
Yes, any one can have his life philosophy and can challeng the pillar, that makes a success more difficult because there are limitless examiners around to attack you from all directions.It also makes accomplishment of any result that could be considered significant nigh impossible as well, which was one of my earlier points.
Dapthar
Quote/To the contrary, it makes it easier. Any point with a shred of truth to it can be argued just as well as an established idea, since there is no experimental evidence or previous standards to conform to, i.e. too much freedom, and too little structure makes a subject rather easy./

I don't quite get what you mean. Do you mean that the phi-man are talking baseless things or without care for logics?No. Without a well-established set of ideas that are assumed to be true, logic is essentially useless. See my earlier example with the system where 1 + 1 equals 3.
math use formula or symbol to argue or reason,
phi-man use langguang to do so most of the time because the case can not be generalised into a set of simple symbols and equations or > or <, that does not mean no reason or structure at all.No, it doesn't. But since Philosophy utilizes language instead of symbolic logic, it inherits all of the flaws inherent in language itself, the vagueness, the paradoxes, etc.

Language is a tool to express ideas, not one to examine them with, e.g. one builds a circuit with completely different tools then one uses to examine it with. Why? Construction tools are generally not suited for diagnostics, and language is no exception to this assertion.
BTW: you don't have to scream to big blue to make a point.That was not my intention. My aim with the large blue text was to bring main ideas to other posters who may be skimming the thread in hopes of drawing more minds into the discussion. All of this was clearly explained in my note, which you apparently skipped or paid no heed to.
Dapthar
Quote/It is true that in Mathematics, one is primarily concerned with self-consistency, since it is a measure of the strength of one's logic, but if one's constructs don't do something useful (In the context of Mathematics) then there isn't much point to it. Again, your example doesn't work either, since anything having to do with physical reality is not a concern of Mathematics. Frankly, if assuming the sun is made of gold led to an interesting solution of a long-standing problem, e.g. the Riemann Hypothesis, then Mathematicians would have no problem doing so./

A lot of math assumptions come as the abstractions from reality, or physical model, at least at the begining of its construction of any system, so you can not say that physical world has nothing to contribute to math, otherwise math become ghost depicting completely. I should have stated that "physical reality is no longer a concern of Mathematics", since that is what I meant. I recognize that the concept of a number arose, in part, from physical reality, but physical reality has not been a concern of Mathematics since then.
... but if you do so as a phi-man, you become everybody's laugh stuff.

Dapthar
Quote/Do you realize you are contradicting yourself here? You were just lauding the freedom of Philosophy, and now are touting its system of checks and balances? /

You are assuming that which is not true. See above. Please clarify. The only relevant prior reference I see is that of language being the tool of Philosophy, rather than symbolic logic, but, that does not seem to shed light on what you are referring to as my assumption or my error.

Dapthar
Quote/I could create a philosophical paradox that states the sun is composed of a substance that only looks like Hydrogen and Helium to our instruments, but is actually composed of tiny strings of energy that no device can currently detect, (replacing "tiny strings of energy" with "tiny fragments of gold" will yield an analogue to your original example), but every measuring device that exists today cannot detect them, and this philosophical "paradox" currently has no resolution. It doesn't mean that it has any less validity since it goes against "Philosophical common sense", so even your absurd argument holds as much Philosophical validity as current Physics research./

You call it a paradox?Yes, and I explained why, and you quoted my explanation. If you want further clarification, you will have to ask about a specific aspect of my post.
Being so emotional does not help you think phi- or math-ly.(I hate long spelling)Emotional? The only word that I noted that could be perceived as emotional was "absurd", and it was simply used as my choice of adjective with no emotional subtext intended.
Without physical evidences any statement remains as assumptions, not only phi- ones.
what do you mean by "Philosophical common sense"? Essentially, common sense. The "Philosophical" was something I neglected to delete prior to posting.
Yes a philosopher will not be easy to adapt to any profession, not because of the difficulty but the professional glossary.

Dapthar
Quote/So you're stating that Philosophers posses the proper tools to adapt to other fields, and the only barrier are the technical terms? Are you serious? Philosophy is not that efficient of an exercise for one's mind. The concepts in Mathematics are what present the difficulty, not the terminology, and I assert that Philosophy doesn't prepare one for the mental acrobatics that Mathematics requires./The study of Philosophy does not teach one wisdom, it teaches one Philosophy, and these two concepts are not the same thing.
Math is reputed as mind agility demanding. A laborman can not afford it. But mind agility is not enough for philosophy, transforming mind agility into wisdom needs other properties like sense of responsibility, being balanced emotionally, ie, dancing gracefully between subjectiveness and objectiveness, etc.I already refuted a similar argument with a "superset/subset" rationale. It applies here as well, since if Philosophy was a more mentally demanding subject than Mathematics, it would be relatively easy for Philosophers to become Mathematicians, but, as reality contests, it obviously is not.
axiomatic=/=difficult, neither.
"In Philosophy, almost all interpretations are equally valid, but this is not true in Mathematics." That is funny.

That is why we call it like ghost-depicting, because the concept comes before the extensions. I believe in almost all subjects the concept must exist before it is extended. Perhaps you are referring to something else?
How much effort is dependent on how much you want to gain, not the subject

Dapthar
Quote/To the contrary, the effort one must put in to a field to understand it is directly proportional to the difficult of the subject./

I did not see any "contrary" here.The contradiction is that you asserted the effort one must put into a field is dependent on what one wants to gain, while I stated that the effort one must put forth is intrinsically related to the difficulty of the subject.
My statement is also proportional. But I would like to make it clearer. With the subject held the same, the efforts by different people are different to achieve the same degree of understanding.With this clarification, your statement now essentially agrees with mine, although the "same degree of understanding" may pose some problems later on.
3,I doubt the statistics by this thread because who can be called a phi-man is highly questionable.

Dapthar/quote/I don't really get what you're saying here, perhaps that your original "rarity" argument was flawed since the number of people in a field is at best a mediocre indicator of its difficulty? Something else perhaps?/

How would you judge a person as a phi-man or not, a book? a degree? a review? and how would you grade them as successful ones?A degree seems to be a reasonable option. What level of degree to consider (Bachelor's, Master's or Ph.D.) can be decided by you.
The number of participants in a game is decided by supply/demand of a mraket, but how many of them will become great is not. you can have a whole bunch of them being "mediocre".A certain level of dedication must be put forth to posses a degree of some sort, thus (hopefully) filtering out most of the "mediocre" applicants.

4,difficulty exists in any profession and can deter any one, for instance, walking is simple but can you walk on hands, on one hand? on a finger? The same is true with math, you can build a math maze that no one can solve or simply there is no solution to it, but this is not an indication of wisdom.

Dapthar/quote/Neither is formulation of a Philosophical paradox, which is an analogue of the example you are trying to use. Again, a moot point, for it goes "against" both Mathematics and Philosophy.

I hope that you are going to return to supporting your ideas now that you are done with this aside./

I don't know if my answers are up to your satisfaction but feel free to ask.If they aren't, I ask.

Are you assuming phi as paradoxes or built on paradoxes?No. You were attempting to reduce the difficulty of Mathematics to Mathematical Paradoxes, and using those to show that those "[are] not [indicative] of wisdom", and I stated that the same argument could be applied to Philosophy, thus, it was a moot point.

nothing a philosopher can ever say is universal.

Isn't that a universal statement? Does that mean it isn't true?You falsely assume that S.P. is a Philosopher. If he/she is not, there is no paradox.
You cannot compare/meassure the depth of science (or philosophy) - though it would be interesting if it were possible eg. on a boek cover would be printed:
<B>READABILITY</b>:
minimaly required IQ = 125, recomender 135 optimal = 150

That way we would be able to asses the "depth" of the subject of the book.That would just be forcing some other arbitrary and controversial "standard", which would not achieve the purpose you seek. Frankly, it would only serve to be a self-reinforcing mechanism of IQ, since if someone with an IQ of say, 100 only reads books within their IQ range, they will most likely never improve. (This is all under the assumption, that, for the moment, IQ is a valid measure of anything, which I personally believe it not to be.)
Not true. Take eg. flogiston theory (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A392681) Widely believed true in the scientific world for a long time before it was disproved. I believe that if you take all of S.P.'s comments as referring exclusively to Mathematics, then everything he said is essentially correct. Once something is proven in Mathematics it remains true, if one assumes the axioms are true, of course.

Dapthar:
Quote/
However, if the axioms are not what most would consider to be reasonable assumptions, then they are essentially useless. I could build an axiomatic system where all additions are off by 1, i.e. 1+1 would equal 3 instead of 2. Most likely, alternate versions of all other theorems that exist could be derived, but they would not be what almost any person who studies Mathematics would consider reasonable, since they were based on a premise most would consider false. Thus, your (implied) assertion of freedom of choice with the axioms is a bit off kilter. Not necessarily incorrect, but not truly reasonable. (Such is the English language, eh?)/


your way of answering is really something unusual. It tends to take the discussion out of context. I hope this is not what you intend.


By reason, you refer to if it is true to reality, in this case, "Reasonable" is not a correct word.
with math it should be true or false to its own logics.
As I mentioned already, math works as abstracts of physical reality, what kind of math is applicable depend on what physical factors effecting.
only when considering if there is a match between the math and physical case, we call it reasonable or not.
Math tries to reflects the effecting physical factors and their relationship, that is why they try to keep math "reasonable", otherwise it is useless except for fun or exercise of deduction.

Again, you are missing the issue. I asked for an example of Philosophy aiding the field of Mathematics, not those who study it.

Since we are asked not to post long text, here but the URL's, there is a list of major plilosophical contribution to mathematics "Philosophers on Mathematics (http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/maths/faq006.htm)"

Dapthar:
Two points for your consideration:
1;you lower the efficiency of this discussion, below average level of response.
2;you make others' response inconvenient.
That could be a sign of lack of wisdom.

Dapthar:
Two points for your consideration:
1;you lower the efficiency of this discussion, below average level of response.
2;you make others' response inconvenient.
That could be a sign of lack of wisdom.


yinyin it seems that you reduce math to a triviallity that can be mastered and revolutionized by anyone. this leads me to believe that you know very little of what it takes to be a successful scienctist/mathematician. having the understanding to make a contribution in these fields is not as simple as you set forth. the necessary insight to realize something that has never been realized before in the history of the world is really a substantial feat. very few have it. being able to solve some random math problem does not mean one understands math. mathematicians do not sit around workin problems over and over. they try to discover new math. i really think you need to understand the difference between working problems and being a scientist before you can draw any conclusions on the intelligence required to be succeed here.

anyone can create a philosophy based upon what they have experienced. it requires no unique insight. there in lies the subjectivity and relativity of philosophy.

yinyin it seems that you reduce math to a triviallity that can be mastered and revolutionized by anyone. this leads me to believe that you know very little of what it takes to be a successful scienctist/mathematician. [/B]
How did you get there?

having the understanding to make a contribution in these fields is not as simple as you set forth. the necessary insight to realize something that has never been realized before in the history of the world is really a substantial feat. very few have it. being able to solve some random math problem does not mean one understands math. mathematicians do not sit around workin problems over and over. they try to discover new math. i really think you need to understand the difference between working problems and being a scientist before you can draw any conclusions on the intelligence required to be succeed here.

anyone can create a philosophy based upon what they have experienced. it requires no unique insight. there in lies the subjectivity and relativity of philosophy.
If you read carefully, you can find the answer,I really don't want to repeat.

Dapthar:
quote/A degree seems to be a reasonable option. What level of degree to consider (Bachelor's, Master's or Ph.D.) can be decided by you./

That may explain some of the controversy.
To my understanding, to be a phi-man must come up with a system including natural sciences/history/social sciences. Your standard substantially lower the credibility.
And a sad truth is that a large amout of phi-ideas comes from non-degree holders.

How did you get there?


If you read carefully, you can find the answer,I really don't want to repeat.

maybe you should take your own advice. i have seen what you have said, and it isnt of any merit

maybe you should take your own advice. i have seen what you have said, and it isnt of any merit
What merit have you made to qualify you to say so?
Try your empty attacks with fools.

What merit have you made to qualify you to say so?
Try your empty attacks with fools.

well you batter away any counterstatements with arrogance and a self rightuous attitude. im still waiting for you to show me that you know anything about math or science. if you do this then maybe your claims of their ease of mastery will have some merit. until then it sounds like you are just trying to justify to other people that you are smart. i am by no means convinced of that.

i had to wade through the annals of past though during my scholarly years and i found that philosophers (past at least) are the most insufferably jumped-up petty people that ever lived. really they experienced and thought about nothing more important than a serf who grew potatoes, they just rendered it in pompous language. thats not to say there is no worth in what has been written, but i hav enever known a man who has become truly learned to have really found out any truths for himself; all he has found out is that the spectrum of knowledge is very wide. it seems to me now that knowledge does not enrich a man, it just exposes him to more sadness. most smart people i know are sad, actually...

how the hell do they know what someone like hegel's iq was? was there someone around to measure it back then?

well you batter away any counterstatements with arrogance and a self rightuous attitude. im still waiting for you to show me that you know anything about math or science. if you do this then maybe your claims of their ease of mastery will have some merit. until then it sounds like you are just trying to justify to other people that you are smart. i am by no means convinced of that.
If you got eyes, you can see I made points about math already. If you disagree with my point, then point out what is wrong with any point and back your word with facts and logics.
Since you never mention any specific point except for making empty statements, I don't know how to argue with empty accusation except for ingnoring it.
What can be called proven knowing math in your eyes? Why don't you do it first?

If you got eyes, you can see I made points about math already. If you disagree with my point, then point out what is wrong with any point and back your word with facts and logics.
Since you never mention any specific point except for making empty statements, I don't know how to argue with empty accusation except for ingnoring it.
What can be called proven knowing math in your eyes? Why don't you do it first?

reality and the universe can be described using math and science. that can not be said for philosophy. if you have eyes check out that you havent demonstrated any thing showing you even understand why people study math and science. the fact that you dont see their importance shows me that you have very little understanding of them. if you said anything worthy of quoting, i would do so back to you, unfortunately though, your arguments against math/science have held no water.

Dapthar:Quote/Ok, so I don't get the point you're driving at. Would you mind clarifying it? What is the relevance of the lack of young Philosophers?/
Because it is not that easy for young people just like we don't see much old football players.

Dapthar:Quote/Ok, so I don't get the point you're driving at. Would you mind clarifying it? What is the relevance of the lack of young Philosophers?/
Because it is not that easy for young people just like we don't see much old football players.

this is ridiculous. age is totally irrelevent. what if it was just when you get older you get set into a mold and your creativity suffered. it could also be that these young scientists were some of the most brilliant people to have ever lived. they had insight. they approached a problem at a new angle. there are tons of explanations. what if it took philosophers all their life to come up with something because they were stupid and it took them that long to put anythng together? that explanation follows just as logically as yours does.

Dapthar:/Quote/It also makes accomplishment of any result that could be considered significant nigh impossible as well, which was one of my earlier points./

Difficulty cause impossibility. yes. No one has ever comes up with a complete success one till now, but we have some great attempts worth of examing.

Dapthar:Quote/Without a well-established set of ideas that are assumed to be true, logic is essentially useless. See my earlier example with the system where 1 + 1 equals 3./

you still can apply logics of what ever kind but no use garanteed in reality.

Dapthar:Quote/Without a well-established set of ideas that are assumed to be true, logic is essentially useless. See my earlier example with the system where 1 + 1 equals 3./

you still can apply logics of what ever kind but no use garanteed in reality.

which matches with what dapthar said, that logic is essentially useless

Dapthar/Quote/No, it doesn't. But since Philosophy utilizes language instead of symbolic logic, it inherits all of the flaws inherent in language itself, the vagueness, the paradoxes, etc.

Language is a tool to express ideas, not one to examine them with, e.g. one builds a circuit with completely different tools then one uses to examine it with. Why? Construction tools are generally not suited for diagnostics, and language is no exception to this assertion./

Any expression of thinking uses the tool of language, but just different kind of languages in different professins. Math language is composed of symbols with some amount of words too. Can you define the meaning of a symbol with a word? Any concept without a word?
Engineers use drawings as their prime language, but can you teach engineering without a word? Can they work without a word?
Language of word is a general tool in expression and philosophy deals with generalization, that is why. Not because a word is less efficient, unclear and inferior in expression.
We do not use language as the only tool, also check facts and logics.

Dapthar/quote/That was not my intention. My aim with the large blue text was to bring main ideas to other posters who may be skimming the thread in hopes of drawing more minds into the discussion. All of this was clearly explained in my note, which you apparently skipped or paid no heed to./

I am really supprised that the blue part is your main point!

i think philosophy is a much more artistic disciplin than mathematics. math appeals to rigid thinkers, which technical philosphy does perhaps to..but a broad thinking philosopher will have a deeper understanding of things than someone who thinks in purely mathematical terms. mathematic thinkers seem to only be able to work within set perameters -which they excell in - but going beyond that they struggle.

i think philosophy is a much more artistic disciplin than mathematics. math appeals to rigid thinkers, which technical philosphy does perhaps to..but a broad thinking philosopher will have a deeper understanding of things than someone who thinks in purely mathematical terms. mathematic thinkers seem to only be able to work within set perameters -which they excell in - but going beyond that they struggle.

boombox i will contend that you are very much wrong in stating that mathematicians are limited to rigid, uncreative thought. if what you said is true, then we will never have any progress in math or science for taht matter. many mathematicians are also theoretical physicists. the new math that these great minds disover often lends itself to new break throughs in physics. hard scientists often get classified as being uncreative or over analytic. those who do this classifications very often arent aware of or have any understanding of these fields. could you call einstein uncreative? special relativity and general relativity are such outrageous concepts. there is no way that an uncreative person could even conceive of these things. im sure most people haev seen "beautiful mind." could he be called rigid? the math that professor nash formulated has dramatic and outreaching implications. he did win a nobel prize in economics for the implications of his work after all.

richard feynman is another example. he is arguably one of the most brilliant people to ever live. he was hugely mathematical. he was an accomplished artist as well. he pretty much excelled in everything he did. he won a nobel prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics. to even have the simplist understanding of the most basic quantum mechanics, one cannot be rigid. the concepts are so unusual that they can shatter worldviews.

there is a famous saying in physics about theorists, if you re not failing at least 50% of the time then you arent being creative enough.

you will contend this will you? when are you planning this? let me know because i sure wouldnt want to miss the even.

actually i agree with you. but i didn’t actually say that math is limited to rigid thinkers. what i was getting at is that thinkers who cannot or will not see the world beyond mathematical terms are very nescient. of course many people employ math as part of a more elaborate way of seeing things. like descartes did. thats very useful. it just seems to me that the sort of people that excel in math are *usually* rigid thinkers. i dont know why that is.

Dapthar/quote/I should have stated that "physical reality is no longer a concern of Mathematics", since that is what I meant. I recognize that the concept of a number arose, in part, from physical reality, but physical reality has not been a concern of Mathematics since then./

Mathmen paint pictures of the world using symbols and formulas, the pictures may reveal the truth of the world or not. The painters do not paint for fun of painting but expressing their view on the world. Otherwise they are useless as you said.

you will contend this will you? when are you planning this? let me know because i sure wouldnt want to miss the even.

well im pretty sure i just did contend it and supplied reasoning and examples. there you go.

there is also a huge difference between getting an A in your math classes and being a mathematician as i have stated in different words before.

Dapthar/quote/Please clarify. The only relevant prior reference I see is that of language being the tool of Philosophy, rather than symbolic logic, but, that does not seem to shed light on what you are referring to as my assumption or my error./
Math uses symbols as its prime language with logics behind does not mean symbolic language is a better one. If the real world can be simplized in such a way, the phi-man will not hesitate and has no problem to use a symbolic set of expression. Just becaues of the complexity not the easiness which prevent them from doing so.

Upon review of the posts in this thread, I've decided that it's become a horribly efficient waste of my time. I am aware of the irony of discussing the Philosophy of Mathematics, and the fact that, not surprisingly, this discussion has become futile. Unless someone makes some further remark that I feel warrants a response, I will no longer be posting in this thread.

Upon review of the posts in this thread, I've decided that it's become a horribly efficient waste of my time. I am aware of the irony of discussing the Philosophy of Mathematics, and the fact that, not surprisingly, this discussion has become futile. Unless someone makes some further remark that I feel warrants a response, I will no longer be posting in this thread.

That does not seem compatible with your blue part, the main point.

Honorable fellow list members, may I draw your attention to the fact that
symbolic logic and philosophy have not been that far away from each other,
especially since the times of logical positivism initiated by the Vienna Circle?
Here's a few names belonging to that tradition: Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
C.I. Lewis, Goodman, Kripke, Davidson, Prior, Vendler, Anscombe, Montague, Putnam,
David Lewis, Stalnaker, Kit Fine, Geach, Linsky, Dummett, von Wright, Hintikka,
van Frassen, Cresswell, Kaplan... (Of course by saying this I wouldn't like to take
sides in your debate about the measurement of philosophers' IQ in general. I'm just
making a point worth noting.)

Honorable fellow list members, may I draw your attention to the fact that
symbolic logic and philosophy have not been that far away from each other,
especially since the times of logical positivism initiated by the Vienna Circle?
Here's a few names belonging to that tradition: Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
C.I. Lewis, Goodman, Kripke, Davidson, Prior, Vendler, Anscombe, Montague, Putnam,
David Lewis, Stalnaker, Kit Fine, Geach, Linsky, Dummett, von Wright, Hintikka,
van Frassen, Cresswell, Kaplan... (Of course by saying this I wouldn't like to take
sides in your debate about the measurement of philosophers' IQ in general. I'm just
making a point worth noting.)

People can be phi- and math-men at the same time, but at the sequence of being a mathone first and developing into phi-one.

People can be phi- and math-men at the same time, but at the sequence of being a mathone first and developing into phi-one.

yin yin i wonder if you even have the slightest understanding of any math or science

Maths is simpler then philosophy: maths is sequential (if this then that) while philosophy is non sequencial (is this comparable to that (what's the cathegory of this..)) Sequentially also an idiot (with a calculator) will find the way...while in philosophy an idiot will come nowhere. The reason we have calculator implys that mathematics is basically simple... Why we do not have philosoculator?

Maths is simpler then philosophy: maths is sequential (if this then that)
This statement demonstrates that you have either had very little experience in collegiate Mathematics, or you are purposefully over generalizing to further your point. Either way, you are incorrect for reasons discussed earlier.
Sequentially also an idiot (with a calculator) will find the way...while in philosophy an idiot will come nowhere. The reason we have calculator implys that mathematics is basically simple... Why we do not have philosoculator?

A calculator will only solve the most simplistic problems in Mathematics, and by no means will an "idiot" with a calculator be successful in the field of Mathematics. The fact that calculators and software can solve some simple problems is due to the mechanical structure of some routine aspects of Mathematics, e.g. basic arithmetic, integrals with a real variable of integration, plotting of graphs, etc.

Frankly, the fact that there exists no such device for Philosophy is a testament to the disorder of the field, since nearly any system (not subject, system) with even the most complex set of rules can be modeled by current programming languages. Thus, the lack of such a device/program only supports my assertion that the study of Philosophy is essentially a waste of time, since without order, there can be no advancements, and a field that is incapable of such is not a field one should choose to study.

The fact that calculators and software can solve some simple problems is due to the mechanical structure of some routine aspects of Mathematics, e.g. basic arithmetic, integrals with a real variable of integration, plotting of graphs, etc.


A caclulator called Deep Blue (http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/home/html/b.html) defeated the best human in chess. (But I egree with you that an idiot is still smarter than a computer)


Frankly, the fact that there exists no such device for Philosophy is a testament to the disorder of the field, since nearly any system (not subject, system) with even the most complex set of rules can be modeled by current programming languages. Thus, the lack of such a device/program only supports my assertion that the study of Philosophy is essentially a waste of time, since without order, there can be no advancements, and a field that is incapable of such is not a field one should choose to study.

It pleases me that you finally regognise that to understand philosophy means understanding of non-systematized infromation. This may be the new frontier for the field of mathematics (if it wants to rise above the computer).

A caclulator called Deep Blue (http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/home/html/b.html) defeated the best human in chess. (But I egree with you that an idiot is still smarter than a computer)



It pleases me that you finally regognise that to understand philosophy means understanding of non-systematized infromation. This may be the new frontier for the field of mathematics (if it wants to rise above the computer).

totally irrelevant. you have shown you know nothing of math. a calculator can only be used to solve the most basic of math problems. mathematicians dont solve simple math problems they find new math. if that is easy to you, then you must be pretty smart and revolutionizing the field as we speak. good job!

have you heard of chaos theory? obviously not. once again, you know nothing about math.

also you have shown you dont understand the difference understand the difference between an algorithm and mathematics.

does being a philosopher require a certain level arrogance or just such a huge amount of insecurity.

furthermore, if you had the slightest understanding of math at all you would know the theorists rarely if ever come across numbers in their work

belittling math by stating all you need is calculator to do it is like saying to be a philosopher all you need is a pen and a piece of paper, but worse

I started math at primary school, not phi-

belittling math by stating all you need is calculator to do it is like saying to be a philosopher all you need is a pen and a piece of paper, but worse

It is not my aim to belittle mathematics. I was just pointing out that domain of mathematics is a limited one. Mathematisc can be so far applied only to the countable part of the universe. There is its domain. When it comes to philosophy (and philosophical concepts) then mathematis can be used as an instrument to some philosophical consideration but not more than that.

Let's sum it up:

Mathematics is exact but incomplete
Philosophy is complete but unexact

thus both disciplines have pluses and mins.

Procop said:
understanding of non-systematized infromation

Philosophy has axioms to the same degree as mathematics does... the difference is that we don't know as many of them. To claim that philosophy is complete, or that mathematics is exact, is a terrible misrepresentation.

Procop said:


Philosophy has axioms to the same degree as mathematics does... the difference is that we don't know as many of them. To claim that philosophy is complete, or that mathematics is exact, is a terrible misrepresentation.


yes, the exactness of maths is limited to domain d d<>0 and d < infinity and the completeness of philosophy is limited to the degree that in its domain everything can be placed (named) but not explained or understood.

Those are both assumptions of vast proportions.

yes, the exactness of maths is limited to domain d d<>0 and d < infinity and the completeness of philosophy is limited to the degree that in its domain everything can be placed (named) but not explained or understood.

Just a question, ProCop: where would you put formal (symbolic) logic: is it part of philosophy or math?

Symbolic logic is still an artificial language, even if it's a very complex one, and so relates more closely to mathematics. Philosophy is theoretically based in natural language (although I'm still not sure whether I believe that), and therefore somewhat different.

However, I'm still not sure I see why philosophy is limited to the domain of all things that can be named but not understood (I'd hate to defend that one), or why mathematics is restricted to a numerical set, no matter how large.

Symbolic logic is still an artificial language, even if it's a very complex one, and so relates more closely to mathematics. Philosophy is theoretically based in natural language (although I'm still not sure whether I believe that), and therefore somewhat different.

However, I'm still not sure I see why philosophy is limited to the domain of all things that can be named but not understood (I'd hate to defend that one), or why mathematics is restricted to a numerical set, no matter how large.

there is theoretical math that has no foundation in reality, at least not yet. again, one should be more versed in math before drawing such conclusions about it.

i dont see the significance of starting math in primary school? could the reason be that it is harder so you must start earlier or else be too far behind to gain any understanding as an adult.

Philosophy (language),(and maths - partialy) are used to monitor/describe the constalation of objects (universe). They are tools of description, not of understanding. They can do nothing else than name and compare (mental)objects. (If there was only one undividable object it would be unnamed and uncompared.) Understanding is a by-product of the description, it is non-linguistic and non-mathematical identification with an object in a flash of understanding the object). Poetry is the only tool which can (under favorable conditions) produce such flash. There is very littllle formal logic in poetry...

Your description of the operation of philosophy presumes too much about our understanding of the universe - some of the universe is made by philosophy (in a certain sense).

Do you know the thought experiment of Poincare's bugs?

Some call the flash of knowing spiritual experience. The brain remembers that moment, can sort of "recall it" but cannot analyze it in any way. The moment one tries to analyse it the recollection wades away. I think that doing philosophy or maths is the most efficient manner to avoid knowing the universe :)
Do not know the bugs of Poincare, have you got a link?

Here ya go - <a href="http://mcs.open.ac.uk/tcl2/nonE/CABRI2001/PDiscMod.html">Poincare's Disc</a>

There are several pages (use the arrows at the bottom) which help to show the geometry of the disc.

This thought experiment helps to illustrate how, without higher knowledge of something like the fundamental geometry of your environment, you are forced to define parts of your experience by convention because there is no accessible fact of the matter. The bugs think that their universe is infinite, but we know (or our observations imply) that they live in a finite universe but become infinitely small as they approach the edge of it, such that they can never arrive.

Hence, your experience can be partly defined by convention. The truth is a slippery thing at best.

Also, learning by "the flash of knowing" sounds a lot like Platonic recollection to me - that is, you already know everything in the universe but you forgot it when you were born, and need to be reminded. (Like the slave boy in Plato's Meno, in case you're wondering where I'm getting this.)

Can anyone tell me where I can find a GOOD RELIABLE, online FREE IQ test? :D

Eh... no. But there's a million if you search with Google. Most of them aren't timed, so they don't mean much. They also (often) don't ask you your age, which is odd.

Can anyone tell me where I can find a GOOD RELIABLE, online FREE IQ test? :D

This on-line IQ test (http://www.iqtest.com/) claims to have only 5% difference with formal MENSA or psychologic tests. Limited to 13 min. You must keep the time otherwise accuracy is lost. The IQ result is free, elaboration on specific detailed repport cost $ 10.

Hey! We do have Higher IQ's!

Can anyone tell me where I can find a GOOD RELIABLE, online FREE IQ test? :D

Impossible. Find an IQ test that tests both your short term and long term memory and pattern recognition abililty then we will talk. I have never seen an IQ test that tests your memory, which is a big part of your IQ. Some people aren't very smart, but they can flat out memorize.

Well, if you want to know your IQ, I would suggest you do an official one :P
But let's make something clear - although philosophing may develope your brain... being a philosopher doesn't make you a genius; being a genius often leads you to questionning thing (become some sort of philosopher) instead of just accepting so-called "truths" (like religion).
However, note how I said "often" :P you can be much smarter than anyone else and just choose to do something other than philosophy, heh. For example, my father and I score 170; yet he works in computers and I'm still in school. Now you may want to question yourself about this: how many people did you leave OUT of the estimation? :P

Well, if you want to know your IQ, I would suggest you do an official one :P
But let's make something clear - although philosophing may develope your brain... being a philosopher doesn't make you a genius; being a genius often leads you to questionning thing (become some sort of philosopher) instead of just accepting so-called "truths" (like religion).
However, note how I said "often" :P you can be much smarter than anyone else and just choose to do something other than philosophy, heh. For example, my father and I score 170; yet he works in computers and I'm still in school. Now you may want to question yourself about this: how many people did you leave OUT of the estimation? :P

IQ (to be judged (as high)) must be demonstrated (in some way). The resume I posted at the opening gives the highest <I>average IQ</I> to the philosophy group (most influence in/on total history of mankind). (Even though there might be some smart computer programmers they didn´t make it to the list.) Generally HIQ works best on the large scale (large systems), as I pointed above, other disciplines (eg. maths) can separate (scale down to)(partial) problems.

IQ (to be judged (as high)) must be demonstrated (in some way). The resume I posted at the opening gives the highest <I>average IQ</I> to the philosophy group (most influence in/on total history of mankind). (Even though there might be some smart computer programmers they didn´t make it to the list.) Generally HIQ works best on the large scale (large systems), as I pointed above, other disciplines (eg. maths) can separate (scale down to)(partial) problems.

philosophers have not had the largest influence on mankind ny any means. philosophy is an elitest s game. the common man is affected most by religion and technology

I should think that there so many fields wherein genius might lie. As regards philosophers, as I understand it, they were initially astronomers. Taking Spinoza as an example, he was a historian, a physicist, a mathmatician and a scientist, in addition to being a philosopher. I realize his strength in history was the history of the Jews, and that he is best known for being a philosopher, but he was definitely a recognized scientist. I believe that most, or all, of the great philosophers, were also great in math, and I cannot imagine one not knowing their history.

Therefore, perhaps these are some reasons that philosophers scored so high; that is, to be a good philosopher one must know some rather time-absorbing facts and also have a good feeling for what did and did not work in the past. What say? PMT

I should think that there so many fields wherein genius might lie. As regards philosophers, as I understand it, they were initially astronomers. Taking Spinoza as an example, he was a historian, a physicist, a mathmatician and a scientist, in addition to being a philosopher. I realize his strength in history was the history of the Jews, and that he is best known for being a philosopher, but he was definitely a recognized scientist. I believe that most, or all, of the great philosophers, were also great in math, and I cannot imagine one not knowing their history.

Therefore, perhaps these are some reasons that philosophers scored so high; that is, to be a good philosopher one must know some rather time-absorbing facts and also have a good feeling for what did and did not work in the past. What say? PMT


A very good point. It is indeed possible that philosophy is a more advanced level of expertise acquired in some other field of science. (In a way you step out of the frame of your field into a larger domain of knowledge (Herman Hesse wrote something like: if you show me a girl's knee I will draw easily her face, her figure - all of her because in the curves of her knee all her curves and shapes are specified/imprinted.) So if you know something good (really very good) you are more able to generalise your knowledge with regard to the broader body of knowledge).

What a nice way to put it. Another thing that amazed me about Spinoza was all the languages of which he had practical knowledge, and, of course with some he was well adapted: Spanish, Dutch, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, right off the top of my head, which I did not mention, but is another aspect of his learning process. Of course, he was not the only one with multiple attributes, any of which he accomplished more than the average person. W. N. A. Klever wrote that when Spinoza died, his library was found to consist of very few books on philosophy, but more about science. The philosophical books he mentioned were Aristotle and Descartes. No surprise there!.

Your remarks are well taken. Thank you. ......PMT

I haven't read but perhaps 1/2 of the osts so this may have already been covered.

Mathematics is totally structured. Those, such as physicists that rely on mathematical models given to them by others do not use free thought processes.

While a certain degree of skill, knowledge and intelligence ios required, it is not nearly so much, as those that actually develope such concepts from intuitive or subjective thought.

Regarding IQ's I think they are highly suspect. There are to many different test yielding to many different results. Yet there does seem to be a general analog to levels of intelligence. The problem is how to actually test it fully.

For myself my last test was a 136. Yet the data in this thread suggest "Soldiers" all have a 136. I've known soldiers that tested 65.

136 would be placed in the upper 5%. My grandson tests 163.

I just don't put a lot of faith in the IQ testing. The true test is more of achievment than of test results.

So, could we say that IQ's, though they do tend to indicate a level of ability, cannot quite encompass all aspects of someone's smarts, or lack of? Having an ability to be reasonabe, a tendency to be resourceful, a willingness to be gracious, and the courage of one's convictions just about says it. pmt

So, could we say that IQ's, though they do tend to indicate a level of ability, cannot quite encompass all aspects of someone's smarts, or lack of? Having an ability to be reasonabe, a tendency to be resourceful, a willingness to be gracious, and the courage of one's convictions just about says it. pmt

Generally I would be inclined to say yes or that it is in the right direction.

I am remined of a story I heard growing up in northern Indiana 40 miles from Logansport.

It happens that there is a state mental facility in Logansport and the story went that a yound man driving past the facility had a flat tire and pulled over onto a fairly level but grass filled ditch.

As he was changing the tire a patient was standing next to the fence watching him. When the driver started to mount the new tire on he couldn't find the lug nuts in the grass and the mental patient said "They call me crazy but I would have put the lug nuts in the hub cap".

Mathematics is totally structured.

I thing I could claim that <i>everything</i> is totally structured. Chaos is the term we use when we speak about structures which we do not understand (lack of knowlede) Philosophy tries to understand this totality without the full knowledge of it. To understand something with only small fragments of the knowledge of the whole is more dificult that to understand something with the knowledge of large pieces o