Curiosity vs Intelligence
Intelligence
Side Score: 8
|
 |
Curiosity
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
0
points
Free games online to play with friends at school. Fully unblocked. Let's play Side: Intelligence
Well, cats are curious but they've never invented anything and they're absolutely hopeless at calculus. Being curious will present the inquisitor with innumerable mysteries but without intelligence to solve or experiment with the newly found enigmas curiosity becomes meaningless. Edward Jenner, the brilliant English physicist was curious why milk maids didn't catch cowpox. His inquisitiveness combined with his intelligence resulted in the first vaccination program for smallpox and leading eventually to the mass prevention of killer diseases such as Polio, Tuberculosis, Rubella and whooping Cough AND COVID-19. George Stevenson, the Scottish engineer, known as the father of railways pondered at steam having the power to lift the lid of a kettle of boiling water and, by employing his intelligence developed this observation to make his first steam engine. Alexander Fleming returned from holiday and noticed mold growing on a Petri dish of bacteria. His curiosity caused him to study why the mold seemed to be preventing the bacteria around from growing. This highly intelligent Scotsman soon identified that the mold produced a self-defense chemical which could kill the bacteria. That was the birth of penicillin and the wide range of antibiotics which have saved millions of lives. These are just a few instances which go to illustrate that curiosity without intelligence is nothing more than a pointless pastime. Side: Intelligence
1
point
It isnt because cats are curious that it means they have the intellectual POTENTIAL to solve abstract problems such as calculus. Our human brain is constrained within certain limits just like cats' brains. If I follow your different examples, then all the discoveries were made BECAUSE of curiosity: - 1st "was curious why milk maids didn't catch cowpox" - 2nd "pondered at steam having the power to lift the lid of a kettle of boiling water" - 3rd "noticed mold growing on a Petri dish of bacteria" As you acknowledge, each one of them started with an observation. It was because of curiosity that they sought to understand the "why" of their observations. Most of people until then (and even now) wouldnt care for the why. Only the curious ones will investigate. All inventions come from investigations that are triggered by curiosity: one needs to be curious to ask himself questions such as "what happened to trigger such a phenomenon I observed?" or "what could happen if we do this and this that way?" "How can we improve this and this?" and so on. Side: Curiosity
|
2
points
Since the birth of humanity, each invention or discovery made has started out of an observation or a hypothesis. One necessarily needs to be curious to ask himself questions such as "what happened to trigger such a phenomenon I observed?" or "what could happen if we do this and this that way?" "How can we improve this and this?" and so on. It isnt intelligence that triggers such need for an answer. It is curiosity. For example the difference between a brilliant expert capable of knowing the smallest details in some specific fields and a genius are huge: one accumulates knowledge while the other ask himself a question to explain an observation/hypothesis. Curiosity is what made the genius, cold analysis of information is what made the expert. Also, if intelligence is understood as the ability to understand our environment and come up with solutions to adapt to it as opposed to animals and vegetal, then no intelligence is possible without curiosity. Indeed, if all our current knowledge that make one intelligent or not has been based on past discoveries, then intelligence cannot be achieved without curiosity. In certain faiths, it is out of curiosity induced by the snake that Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. Side: Curiosity
Since the birth of humanity, each invention or discovery made has started out of an observation or a hypothesis. Hello again, U: But, if you're dumb, you won't know what you're looking at.. Look. This debate will NOT reveal whether curiosity came before intelligence or vise versa.. So, I'm just gonna bow out. excon Side: Intelligence
2
points
2
points
This debate will NOT reveal whether curiosity came before intelligence or vise versa.. So, I'm just gonna bow out. You do bow out of debates that you can't win with left wing logic a lot, which is most of them. You having retreated as if it's some kind of retreat religion has further strengthened the right's positions because you go dumfounded for a response 90% of the time. If a smart man couldn't rebut 90% of his opponents' positions, he'd rethink his positions instead of being a complete dumbass until the day he dies. Side: Curiosity
|
