CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Link Between Intelligence & Viewing the World in Greater Detail
The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail
Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism? If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter? Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?
Intelligence is the capability to think. Often having a greater capability means you take in more information and it's that greater exposure which would give viewing of the world in greater detail. However, if you use that capability to think to arrive at living by a set parameter, whether that's a paradigm or ideology or religion, and then filter the subsequent information you take in, then you can be an intelligent person with the capability to think but who then chose to take less in. Thus, you can have a brain trained to be a genius surgeon but yet still have the blinder of a religion when it comes to history and nature.
Solid post--I think you made a strong observation.
Also, as I think you were touching upon, highly intelligent people can conjure up very sophisticated reasons for believing in "silly" things, while a person of low intelligence may believe the same "silly" things without any sophisticated reasons to support their ideas.
A person could conceivably observe every detail open to them but lack any ability to draw logical connections or connect their observations to a conceptual framework. A person could be highly aware but lack insight. If there is a correlation between intelligence and detailed perspective, it is not likely 1 to 1. Don’t worry about the PhD young earther, there are plenty of stupid intellectuals.
A person could be highly aware but lack insight. If there is a correlation between intelligence and detailed perspective, it is not likely 1 to 1.
I see the point you are making here, although my use of the term "view" is intended to be broader in scope. That is, for instance, Quantum Mechanics is a particular way of viewing the world that is much more complex than a person would intuitively "view" it. Furthermore, as are sophisticated understanding/appreciation of World History, Philosophical abstract notions of "justice" (if there is such a thing--which is argued about) and other big themes in the discipline, the ability to recognize the Mathematical characteristics behind commonplace structures in the external environment, analysis of aesthetics, ect. ect.
I believe the deficiencies I originally presented could be present even if a person has a broader “view” in the sense you mean. The PhD with large amounts of information, could see all the nuance in the world, but still be unable to make the logical connections or insights on his own, leaving him with a fancy title and a young earth belief.
I believe the deficiencies I originally presented could be present even of a person has a broader “view” in the sense you mean. The PhD with large amounts of information, could see all the nuance in the world, but still be unable to make the logical connections or insights on his own, leaving him with a fancy title and a young earth belief.
I agree that only a particular area of intelligence is required in order to accomplish the feat of attaining a PhD in such an area that fails to capture intelligence as a whole. Having said that, not just anyone can attain such an advanced degree in a technical area, thus indicating that a high level of concentrated intelligence is required. This however does not necessarily account for the potential to have exceedingly low intelligence in other concentrated areas.
This seems to suggest that human intelligence is a very complicated notion to "wrap one's hands around" as some of the relevant characteristics are quite abstract and difficult to quantify.
Solid contribution--I think your main point is correct.
That is, a person can have very high intelligence while also severely lacking information. Therefore, they may put their keen mind to finding a solution/explanation to an area that they are (essentially) ignorant of--thus, (likely) arriving at wrong conclusions.
Also, a person could be highly intelligent and allocate very little time to deep thought. This would also fit your point of "just because a person is highly intelligent, does not therefore mean they apply said intelligence"
Why is a worldview that includes angels, devils and titans inherently less complex than one that includes dinosaurs and evolution?
This depends on what you mean.
Now, in principle, it is conceivable that a person could develop a Fantasy story (such as a LOTR alternative universe) so long and detailed that it would take the entire Library of Congress to shelve, and if a person were to read and understand much of this, then that would be quite a detailed view of the world. However, there is no reason to think it is accurate (and many reasons to think it is not correct).
If you are referring to Young Earth Creationism rather than our modern understanding of the Universe, it is trivially obvious that Modern Science is a far more complicated story by comparison (and more accurate).
"if a person were to read and understand much of this, then that would be quite a detailed view of the world."
Exactly, despite the fact that it would be completely wrong and the reader wouldn't be particularly smart (though the writer might be).
"However, there is no reason to think it is accurate (and many reasons to think it is not correct)."
To be a pedant, the existence of the literature could be seen as reason to think it is accurate, in addition to any ways that it coincidentally or by design mirrors the actual world. I do agree that the evidence would be heavily weighted against it, however.
"If you are referring to Young Earth Creationism rather than our modern understanding of the Universe, it is trivially obvious that Modern Science is a far more complicated story by comparison (and more accurate)."
I disagree, try for a moment to think of what a "God" would be like: completely incomprehensible to humans. Also, one might consider a religious fundamentalist view of epilepsy relative to the scientific view. The scientist believes that it's a problem with the epileptic's brain, the fundamentalist believes that it's a problem with the epileptic's brain that is being caused by demonic activity. The fundamentalist can accept all the scientific details and yet still complicate the matter further by adding demons into the mix.
Young Earth Creationism is in stark contrast to the deep history of the Universe, life on Earth, our ancestral history, the complexities & implication of our Biological design as revealed through evolutionary Biology, ect. ect. ect. and instead maintains that Abra-Kadabra magic is a sufficient explanation. This is by no mean a balanced see-saw--the Scientific Worldview is a clearly more detailed than that of Young Earth Creationism (as well as more accurate).
1) In my previous post, I provided an example where a religious fundamentalist's worldview could potentially be more detailed than an average Scientist, say
2) Young Earth Creationism is a very particular belief, which is many orders of magnitude less detailed than the Scientific Worldview. Do I need to show you the curriculum that would go into a reasonably solid understanding of the modern view of the World presented by Science as compared to that of a Creationist in order to further demonstrate this point?
3) You are using fuzzy language by having this conversation switch back and forth between Young Earth Creationism and religious fundamentalism more broadly
"1) In my previous post, I provided an example where a religious fundamentalist's worldview could potentially be more detailed than an average Scientist, say"
The link at the bottom? It didn't work for me. This is the only point I'm making; that a more complex worldview doesn't mean the holder is more intelligent.
"Young Earth Creationism is a very particular belief, which is many orders of magnitude less detailed than the Scientific Worldview."
It'd be the belief that "the world is 6000 years old" right? It gets pretty complex when they try to explain dinosaurs, carbon dating, neanderthals etc. Once again, they can accept the majority of the "scientific worldview" (which doesn't exist to be a pedant) and still believe the world is 6000 years old.
" You are using fuzzy language by having this conversation switch back and forth between Young Earth Creationism and religious fundamentalism more broadly"
To be fair though, wouldn't the singular claim of the world being 6000 years old merely be a part of religious fundamentalism in the same way that carbon dating is merely a part of the scientific body?
In the title you say the following "how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter"
This certainly makes sense as a trend, in case you are thinking that I disagree here. I'd imagine it's probably more associated with crystallized intelligence than fluid intelligence too.
This is the only point I'm making; that a more complex worldview doesn't mean the holder is more intelligent.
This can be interpreted in various ways, however really fails to address the heart of the issue and I'm not at all convinced even you believe in your stated position.
A mentally disabled person has very high constraints in relation to how much detail they can view the world from, while Richard Feynman's view of the world is highly detailed in comparison. You mean to contend that "intelligence" is not a (or the) salient variable here?
"however really fails to address the heart of the issue"
What's the heart of the issue? Trends?
"A mentally disabled person has very high constraints in relation to how much detail they can view the world from, while Richard Feynman's view of the world is highly detailed in comparison. You mean to contend that "intelligence" is not a (or the) salient variable here?"
I never made the point that there isn't a trend, but trends don't involve individuals. Schizophrenics and psychosis sufferers often have far more complex worldviews, even if these worldviews have no bearing on reality. I also, as someone who has spoken to reasonably intelligent fundamentalists at length, do not view their worldview as necessarily simple.
I never made the point that there isn't a trend, but trends don't involve individuals
Is it a "trend" that the worldview of a fly is less detailed than a standard, healthy human adult? Does it come down to individuals (in comparison)? Or, is it directly linked to the huge gap in intelligence between the two organisms product of their respective biological structure?
"Is it a "trend" that the worldview of a fly is less detailed than a standard, healthy human adult? Does it come down to individuals (in comparison)?"
I had thought we were comparing groups of humans, not different species. It's interesting you bring up flies though, as they would see the world in greater detail because they have a close-up view of everything. Flies see the detailed textures of objects/surfaces, the multitude of micro-organisms that are crawling over them and more that we do not look at or think about in our day to day lives. While they might not be able to view as much of the world, the parts that they do see are in far greater detail. As for their integrated worldview I'd agree that it is likely to be less detailed across the board.
"Or, is it directly linked to the huge gap in intelligence between the two organisms product of their respective biological structure?"
Certainly, but both the most intelligent and most stupid human have incredibly similar biology. In fact, they are so similar that when we study the group "humans" as a whole we can apply our findings to all humans.
I'm not--actually, my position is that there are different "intelligence types/concentrations" at work that can account for this (seeming) discrepancy. In my description, I alluded to such an option stating:
" Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?"
Now, this is a seeming discrepancy since:
(A) Science explicitly studies the nature of the Physical world and has provided the most detailed (and accurate) view of it as of yet
(B) In order to attain a PhD in Science, one must be exploring and correctly answering problems involved in (A)
(C) At least a certain form of intelligence at minimum above average (or higher) is required to accomplish this task, as not just anyone is currently equipped to attain a PhD in Neuroscience, Chemistry, Bioinformatics, ect. ect.
Now, given the structure of our (USA) current Higher-Ed. system, it is possible for a person to attain a PhD in Science, and still reside within the Mammal Snow Globe (or, even a more constrained and distorted view of the world, such as is provided by Young Earth Creationism) even--which I think serves the point you appear to be suggesting given the framing of you question.
