Razib makes an excellent and obvious point:
I do not believe scientists are particularly rational people as compared to the normal human. Because the average scientist has a higher IQ than the average artist I am willing to grant marginally higher rationality to an average scientist. Their ability to decompose and abstract any given conceptual system is greater. That being said, the contrast between the disciplines of art and science are far greater than those of individual artists and scientists. Why?
Because at the end of the day science does not rely on the rationality of a scientist. It relies on the cumulative and self-correcting rationality of the scientific community. It is the "wisdom of the crowds" at its apotheosis. Additionally, the domain which science addresses is generally skewed toward those which are amenable to abstraction and decomposition. I do not believe that physics is such an awe inspiring science in comparison to biology simply because physicists are more intelligent. They are more intelligent, on average, but that in an of itself does not explain the ability of physics to predict at such a fine grained level. Rather, it is the subject matter of physics which is the variable that makes it so.
I bring this up because many scientists believe that because science is such a superior method of extracting information about the world around us, and constructing predictive models which have been shown to have great utility, that that means that they as scientists can simply transfer their godlike powers to other domains with the greatest of ease. But as the above should make clear I believe this is a false perception, because the power of science arises from the intersection of the communal wisdom of tens of thousands of individuals over decades with the nature of the subject at hand.
I have no idea where those IQ general statements come from - are physicists really smarter than biologists? - but I think the larger point about the power of science depending on the community (and not the uber-rationality of an individual scientist) is spot-on. Razib probably doesn't want to be compared to Richard Rorty, the late pragmatist/post-modernist/left-wing Kuhnian philosopher, but I think Rorty wrote eloquently on the subject of "scientific solidarity":
On this view, there is no reason to praise scientists for being more 'objective' or 'logical' or 'methodical' or 'devoted to truth' than other people. But there is plenty of reason to praise the institutions that they have developed and within which they work, and to use these as models for the rest of culture. For these institutions give concreteness and detail to the idea of unforced agreement.
This is why I don't get worried when a biologist believes in God, or a chemist rejects natural selection, or a cosmologist is superstitious. I trust in science, not scientists. I believe in peer-review, but I don't necessarily believe my peers.
- Log in to post comments
Love the last sentence. I'm going to post it in the hallway.
Yes, where do those "general IQ statements" come from? I saw no citations, and am generally skeptical (as I am with most x = IQ(y) statements). As a scientist, with artist and engineer offspring, I doubt the usefulness as well as the veracity of the statements.
are physicists really smarter than biologists?
yes, physicists are smarter than biologists. in fact, biologists are, on average, even dumber than economists! that makes sense, economics needs math. that doesn't mean biology doesn't rock, obviously it's my favorite science. but, on average biologists aren't as bright. probably goes toward explaining while those from fields with higher mean intelligence like physics and math can get so much done in biology.
and yeah, i know it sounds like rorty :-( i guess it's all about emphasis and interpretation.
I believe in peer-review, but I don't necessarily believe my peers.
that's great. and yes, i'm with the church, right or wrong.
As a scientist, with artist and engineer offspring, I doubt the usefulness as well as the veracity of the statements.
acceptance of the power of small N's to falsify statistical truths is a cognitive bias. you should work on it!
..so where's the citation?
DID YOU READ THE POST? i provided the data on GRE scores and a link to the source. it's public data.
... and what the @#^ is a "statistical truth"!!!
... and what the @#^ is a "statistical truth"!!!
the sort of thing that isn't falsified by your family experience. LOL.
(Sorry, I spend a lot of time defending science based on data, and explaining its limitations - I react strongly to scientists going beyond their data.)
...and you still have explained what a statistical truth is.
tell me what a sophist is, will you mr. my family evidence comes first?
"haven't"
explain "statistical" and "truth" and the conjunction between them
explain "statistical" and "truth" and the conjunction between them
no. :-) i'm not going to get into it with a t-word (readers of my weblog know what i mean, i won't get into a mudslinging match on jonah's blog) who demands a citation and then doesn't bother to read a provided link with said citation. you got no faith. good faith that is.
if you're not willing to defend it, you shouldn't use a phrase like "statistical truth". (And I was paraphrasing Jonah - viz "I have no idea where those IQ general statements come from". I'm sure there are data to back some "truth").
Oh, but if only small Ns could prove statistical truths. Then razib simultaneously proves biologists are dumb, irrational and ginormous jerks!
razib said: "DID YOU READ THE POST? i provided the data on GRE scores and a link to the source. it's public data."
The GREs are intended to measure IQ?
Not according to ETS, which administers the test. They say the GRE is intended to measure reasoning skills, critical thinking, and communication skills (see http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/grevalue.pdf)
By contrast, IQ tests are designed to measure a number of intelligence-related factors including language fluency, three-dimensional thinking, comprehension, arithmetic, similarity recognition, vocabulary, picture completion and arrangement, symbol search, object assembly, and a bunch of others, very few of which are measured by the GRE. There may be some overlap, but obviously your GRE score is not directly convertible into your IQ.
I've seen that Rorty quote before. What's the source?
People who maintain "I could be wrong" as a basic truth/value have every right to think they are intellectually superior... IMO they/we simply are.
Though the point that the brilliance of science comes from the system not from the individuals which comprise it it very true (and somewhat profound if you've never thought about it before.)
A nitpick though... "Intelligence" is not a useful term in this context (too many apples to oranges comparisons are implicit). IQ or GRE scores are also just scales which certain other scales and "ability metrics" are correlated with. Not that test scores are not informative and useful in some contexts... just not this on.
As usual, a fairly incidental mention of IQ brings loads of irate comments - some I agree with, but the core message was not about comparing that factor across sciences or against other disciplines, it was about the scientific process itself.
Your last few lines (JL) and your first comment (RR) basically summed it up. Well said. But that is why we "do" get worried if "scientists" with those views seek to subvert or suppress science to conform their own prejudice - you know it happens.
The arts are heavily peer-reviewed. Do you think the artists who are now in the art history books got there by accident?
This is a very hilarious, inane post. You have to be kidding..right?? I recomend you read: "Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory...and I add: and most science[s]. Amartya K. Sen. Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer, 1977), pp. 317-344
Like everything else in life, having a high IQ or artistic talent or generating great predictive models, have no value in themselves. It's a matter of what you do with them.
I was chatting with the cashier at a grocery store this morning as Hurricane Hanna started raining on the east coast. She was an older woman of indeterminate age with carrot-red hair and missing a few teeth. "It's a good day to watch a DVD and curl up on the couch" she said. Feeling superior I mumbled something about sitting on a meditation cushion for the day and watching my mind. She then shared her plans for when she got off work. She'd visit the mother she had 'adopted' at a local nursing home and told me something about her 'new mom'. She visits there often in her free time. She hoped that there would be someone to do the same for her one day.
Which test accurately measures and compares IQ in scientists - who must have the patience to follow many rules for answers; and artists - who impatiently tend to ignore and break rules for answers? I thought that most standards for IQ comparison were as obsolete with current neuroscience findings changing everyday as the current dictionaries . Aren't we consistently rewriting and updating this data on an hourly basis? I am breaking the rules.
Apparently Razib did not think about "schools of art" and the "wisdom of crowds" of artists. Nor about Newton working in isolation in a plague year or Carnot working on thermodynamics in relative intellectual isolation, demonstrating the power of the isolated scientific genius.
I am not sure general intelligence is all that useful in predicting success in individual scientific fields. Einstein and Linneaus would seem to be the very prototypes of scientific excellence, but would anyone assume they were interchangable? The mental and emotional abilities that make a great theoretical scientist may be quite different than those that make a great descriptive scientist. It may be that people with an aptitude for physics show up differently on IQ tests than do people with an aptitude for biology, but so what?