Re: Rich, poor....Gould

[Judi Hirsch <judih@OUSD.K12.CA.US>]

Hi George,
    re: "Heredity plays a large role in determining the amount of mental
ability an individual possesses," all I can say is it also probably plays a
bigger role in the amount of money one possesses.
    Judi


----- Original Message -----
From: George K. Cunningham <gkc@LOUISVILLE.EDU>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Rich, poor....Gould


> Peter S and Peter F
>
> Oh my gosh I have been accused of the heresy of positivism and here I
don't
> even know what you mean by it.  I have never met a person who admitted to
> that disease.  Now if you are implying that I believe in objective reality
> and reject post-modernist views of science, you got me.
>
> A theory is not just some opinions and does not imply uncertainty.
Theories
> are the explanation for sets of observations.  There is the plate tectonic
> theory to describe  the cause of earthquakes.  There is the theory of a
> spherical earth, and the theory of evolution.  All well established as any
> scientific theories.  You can add to that that the theory of "g" the
> explanation of why any sets of cognitive items or cognitive tests
correlate
> with each other.  I might add there are interesting number of
physiological
> measures that correlate as well.  (Peter S--  You don't have to carefully
> select the items to make this work.)  The shared variance is called "g"
and
> can be obtained and always is the result of factor analyses of cognitive
> measures and items.  To say that "g" is a mere reification, or an
> abstraction and is to be discounted because it lacks objective reality,
now
> that is what I would call real "logical positivism."
>
> The implication of this theory is that humans can be ordered along a
> continuum according to mental ability.  This theory is a refutation of
> Howard Gardner's silly ideas about multiple intelligences.  There are
> physiological differences in the brains of humans that lead to their
> ordering according to the amount of mental ability.  Heredity plays a
large
> role in determining the amount of mental ability an individual possesses.
>
> Now this is an inconvenient theory.  It would be far better if everyone
were
> endowed with equal mental ability and that the only thing that varied were
> character and motivation.  That would certainly be more fair.
> Unfortunatately that does not appear to be the way it is.
>
> Peter F. also said:
>
> "There's the danger of letting
> > straight quantitative methods determine our "scientific" conclusions,
> > without actually bothering to use qualitative methods (like going
> > into classrooms and households to observe the functioning of
> > "intelligent" vs "non-intelligent" kids from day to day) to
> > triangulate."
>
> Excuse my sarcasm but---
>
> What a scary thought.  That scientific conclusions would stem from
> quantitative methods.  It is so much more scientific to "traingulate."
>
>
> George K. Cunningham
> University of Louisville
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George K. Cunningham <gkc@louisville.edu>
> To: George <gkc@louisville.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 2:17 PM
> Subject: Fw: Re: Rich, poor....Gould
>
>
> >
> > George K. Cunningham
> > University of Louisville
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Peter Sacks <psacks@RMCI.NET>
> > To: <ARN-L@listsrva.CUA.EDU>
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 11:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: Rich, poor....Gould
> >
> >
> > > George Cunningham wrote:
> > >
> > >  "The relationship between "g" and intelligence is one of the most
> solidly
> > > >grounded theories in the social sciences."
> > >
> > > What, exactly, do you mean by "theory" here? Do you mean an account of
> > > causes and effects that reasonably concurs with the observed data? If
> so,
> > > please do tell us what "g" is and does with respect to cognitive
> > > functioning.  On the other hand, if you mean that g is a numerical
> > artifact
> > > that results from the careful selection of test items that correlate
> > highly
> > > with one another, that's not a theory or an explanation of anything.
As
> I
> > > understand it, statistical analysis is not science. It's a tool for
> > science
> > > to help quantify relationships in social or natural phenomena.
> > >
> > > Peter Sacks
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> > > to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.