[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:54 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Tim said:
> About murder I would just add, dmb, that it was my point that the argument
> in support of the murder I highlighted was an intelligent argument.  If
> might not be very intelligent, but it was in the level of intelligence
> none-the-less?  My point is, how is intelligence judged? What makes
> intelligence intelligence?  How can one assign any qualitative (or
> quantitative) distinction to any intelligent proposition?  Perhaps we need a
> new word, but I have been recycling 'objective'.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I'm not even making a philosophical point here, Tim. I'm just talking about
> human decency and common sense. If you're smart enough to understand the
> word "murder" then you should realize how crazy you sound. An intelligent
> argument in favor of child murder? There are animals that wouldn't stoop
> that low. You really don't see what a monstrously evil idea that is? How
> could such a thing ever be considered "intelligent" or "intellectual"?
>

[Mark adds]
There is such a thing as pointing out defects in a rational argument using
hyperbole, or arguing through extremes.  What this means is one chooses an
extreme example which would result from a premise to show that the premise
is flawed.  Such reasoning does not necessarily add to the argument against,
but is more of a red herring (do you know that term?  I used to eat herring
in Holland).  Such examples used to test the limits or to prove a point, and
are often misleading and purposefully distorting.  Lawyers love them, as do
politicians.  So I would agree with dmb that the point is to remain
reasonable.

What you say, Tim, regarding intellect may indeed be true, but it adds
nothing.  The scale of intelligence is certainly something we have
discussed.  We have the IQ test that has been considered somewhat
self-serving by some.  Such a test is the intellectual age divided by actual
age, multiplied by 100.  In this way, 100 is average.  The intellectual age
is ill defined.  The measurements rely on certain types of problem solving,
perhaps because the founders were good problem solvers.   In my opinion,
they mean nothing since effort and drive are more important, and their use
in education is overblown.

Rather than define intelligence, it may be more relevant to consider how it
is used.  Use your common sense to define intelligence.  What is better to
you?  How would you use your intelligence to achieve that?  Where does
wisdom come in?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>