61–63 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data (re: the Flynn effect) suggests otherwise.
There are explanations to the Flynn effect that go beyond isolated intelligence. How does one isolate intelligence test when society, nutrition, religions, educational systems, and the very IQ standard itself has changed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they perceive some value is provided by publishing in the traditional way Yes, but it provides value only for scientist careers, not for science.
>> Yes, but it provides value only for scientist careers, not for science. That's a very definitive statement. But perhaps it is untrue? It would seem yes, that it's good for scientist careers.Are "good" careers versus "bad" careers good or bad for science? In other words, is it useful to rank scientists when allocating grant money? Do good scientists make better use of the money than bad ones? Are there other ways y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are explanations to the Flynn effect that go beyond isolated intelligence. How does one isolate intelligence test when society, nutrition, religions, educational systems, and the very IQ standard itself has changed?
I get it, there’s work to be done to flush this out but it’s interesting to me that actual scientific enquiry gets more push back than “but old guy said so.”