Quine is pretty much a god

I took an intro ethics course once upon a time. The first month we studied Aristotle's value ethics, and by the time the midterm rolled around, every one of those students was convinced that they should be virtuous, and live in the mean. The next month we studied post-enlightenment relativism, and by the end of the course, every one of those same students was espousing the supremacy of free will.

Everyone encounters a particular philosopher, or school of philosophy, which they feel is the be-all-and-end-all of philosophy. Hegel, Quine, you name it... But every philosopher has their limits. I'd be very careful of the idols you choose to raise.

[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1330126561' post='4916371']
Quine is pretty much a god

I took an intro ethics course once upon a time. The first month we studied Aristotle's value ethics, and by the time the midterm rolled around, every one of those students was convinced that they should be virtuous, and live in the mean. The next month we studied post-enlightenment relativism, and by the end of the course, every one of those same students was espousing the supremacy of free will.

Everyone encounters a particular philosopher, or school of philosophy, which they feel is the be-all-and-end-all of philosophy. Hegel, Quine, you name it... But every philosopher has their limits. I'd be very careful of the idols you choose to raise.
[/quote]
Dont worry; I have plenty of quibbles with Quine. But being the only person to add something of substance to epistemology in the past 100 years; well, that does command a lot of respect from me.

Here's what you're doing: http://en.wikipedia....icking_(fallacy)

What evidence do you have that I'm cherry picking?

I also cringe at your incorrect use of the term "Theory". What you have is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an untested theory. As far as I'm aware I've found all possible studies that could prove my hypothesis to be true. What other tests could possibly be conducted to prove my hypothesis further? I'll admit that hypothesis may have been a better choice of words though.

Generally speaking, if you make a universal generalization and a counter-example is found to refute your universal generalization, then your universal generalization is wrong.

With that logic the earth must be flat and the sun must orbit the earth since the bible acts a counter argument against other findings. I have more than adequately shown strong evidence to doubt that news article. The problem is that no body has shown any evidence to prove it right. I mean news agencies are notoriously known for reporting inaccurate information but yet that has been the sole basis for any counter arguments which have been presented. I have shown many peer reviewed studies which contradict that news article.

In your case, you met two people who proved or disproved your hypothesis. That's sample size bias. Your premises are flawed and any logic that follows can be safely ignored.

How many freaking times do I have to say that I am not considering this evidence of anything?! I only posted it because it was interesting. That was not even my theory. That was a study someone else published and I have no need to prove it.

I mean news agencies are notoriously known for reporting inaccurate information but yet that has been the sole basis for any counter arguments which have been presented. I have shown many peer reviewed studies which contradict that news article.

Actually, I refuted your entire thesis with a peer-reveiwed study by the APA, back on page 3. A study which you have not read, because it is "quite large".

But you miss the broader point: because psychology/sociology papers are often based on loose correlations, which quite rarely turn out to be causative relations, anyone can come up with a bullshit phrenology theory, and back it up with sociology/psychology papers. For example:
[indent=1]
Taller people are more intelligent [1][2], because intelligent males have a higher chance of attracting beautiful women [3], and tall women are considered more beautiful in our society [4].

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330162568' post='4916457']
I mean news agencies are notoriously known for reporting inaccurate information but yet that has been the sole basis for any counter arguments which have been presented. I have shown many peer reviewed studies which contradict that news article.

Actually, I refuted your entire thesis with a peer-reveiwed study by the APA, back on page 3. A study which you have not read, because it is "quite large".

But you miss the broader point: because psychology/sociology papers are often based on loose correlations, which quite rarely turn out to be causative relations, anyone can come up with a bullshit phrenology theory, and back it up with sociology/psychology papers. For example:
[indent=1]
Taller people are more intelligent [1][2], because intelligent males have a higher chance of attracting beautiful women [3], and tall women are considered more beautiful in our society [4].
[/quote]

What exactly are you trying to disprove? I've sat down and read that entire paper and I see no strong evidence against my hypothesis. I acknowledge that this trend may not be across the board but it certainly is due to biological factors. I would speculate that cultural influences have played a key role in altering the evolution of women in repressive cultures. In the past it was unattractive for a woman to be independent and well educated. Instead men preferred more submissive women. This is very likely the reason we have seen significantly higher rates of autism in the US for the last few decades since the feminist movement. Interesting, apparently there was a study done in 1990 that shows feminist have a higher chance to have autistic children.

Oh look my hypothesis which all of you have been arguing against for the last 4 pages is actually the most widely accepted theory to explain autism! I guess I am just smarter than all of you!

Interesting, apparently there was a study done in 1990 that shows feminist have a higher chance to have autistic children.

So basically you are saying your mother was a feminist?

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1330089592' post='4916185']
[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330076958' post='4916153']
I could argue that for standardized testing the cultural influence in the UK on males is actually much greater than the cultural influence in the US on females or that the link which was posted is not very scholarly. However, I would much rather prove that there is a biological basis for the differences in math ability between the genders.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

And in particular, there is a correlation between the finger length thing, and one's sex, so this is equivalent to simply restating that there's a correlation between sex and SAT scores, which again tells us nothing about what the reason for that is.

Are you seriously tell us that your argument is: "There is a correlation between sex and blah, and there are biological differences between the sexes, therefore blah has a biological cause"?

The same argument works for the UK exam results anyway - there would be a correlation between the finger length thing, and exam results. According to you, that means that girls being better than boys at maths must have a biological basis. (Well, unless you're suggesting that for some reason in the UK, the finger length thing doesn't apply, because for some reason boys in the womb now get less testerone than girls ...)
[/quote]

Seriously, how can you be this dense?! What more evidence could I possibly provide to prove men are generally better at mathematics?
[/quote]There's no need to resort to insults.

You have yet to provide any evidence at all. Only some SAT results, which were countered by the UK exam result scores. And nothing to suggest biological cause rather than other factors.

I'll admit I've not read the paper since it is quite large. From the part swift posted "Stereotypes about female inferiority in mathematics are a distinct contrast to the actual scientific data. These results show that girls will perform at the same level as the boys when they are given the right educational tools and have visible female role models excelling in mathematics." It is in general agreement with my theory. Remember I am not saying they are worse at math because they lack the aptitude but that they lack interest for biological reasons.

It doesn't say the same thing at all. It doesn't say anything about lacking interest. It doesn't say anything about biological reasons. Educational tools and role models are social factors - the point being, they have often been biased against women.

[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330094541' post='4916212']
[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1330089592' post='4916185']
[quote name='SteveDeFacto' timestamp='1330076958' post='4916153']
I could argue that for standardized testing the cultural influence in the UK on males is actually much greater than the cultural influence in the US on females or that the link which was posted is not very scholarly. However, I would much rather prove that there is a biological basis for the differences in math ability between the genders.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

And in particular, there is a correlation between the finger length thing, and one's sex, so this is equivalent to simply restating that there's a correlation between sex and SAT scores, which again tells us nothing about what the reason for that is.

Are you seriously tell us that your argument is: "There is a correlation between sex and blah, and there are biological differences between the sexes, therefore blah has a biological cause"?

The same argument works for the UK exam results anyway - there would be a correlation between the finger length thing, and exam results. According to you, that means that girls being better than boys at maths must have a biological basis. (Well, unless you're suggesting that for some reason in the UK, the finger length thing doesn't apply, because for some reason boys in the womb now get less testerone than girls ...)
[/quote]

Seriously, how can you be this dense?! What more evidence could I possibly provide to prove men are generally better at mathematics?
[/quote]There's no need to resort to insults.

You have yet to provide any evidence at all. Only some SAT results, which were countered by the UK exam result scores. And nothing to suggest biological cause rather than other factors.

I'll admit I've not read the paper since it is quite large. From the part swift posted "Stereotypes about female inferiority in mathematics are a distinct contrast to the actual scientific data. These results show that girls will perform at the same level as the boys when they are given the right educational tools and have visible female role models excelling in mathematics." It is in general agreement with my theory. Remember I am not saying they are worse at math because they lack the aptitude but that they lack interest for biological reasons.

It doesn't say the same thing at all. It doesn't say anything about lacking interest. It doesn't say anything about biological reasons. Educational tools and role models are social factors - the point being, they have often been biased against women.
[/quote]

You are obviously ignoring my latest post. Tell me something. Do you actually believe women's and men's brains are the same? There have been hundreds of books and studies published which indicate a clear biological difference. I can pick up almost any college level psychology or neurobiology text book and it clearly takes note of this fact. They all make it very clear that women are better at linguistics and men are better spatial reasoning.

Many studies have been done and which prove a clear connection between spatial ability and mathematics. Common sense also will lead you to that connection. In fact studies of Einstein's brain show that parts of his brain which deal with spatial intelligence were significantly larger than normal. However, you are right in that I have yet to show a clear connection between interest and ability. In the absence of that hypnosis one can only conclude women are simply dumber than men in spatial reasoning. Although, with a basic understanding of neural networks one would conclude that with a decrease in positive feedback those areas of the brain would not develop as quickly.

I can pick up almost any college level psychology or neurobiology text book and it clearly takes note of this fact.

College level textbooks are worth about the same as the paper they are printed on, even in scientific fields. Hell, the intro algebra textbooks the publisher sent us this year managed to screw up simple interest.

Do you actually believe women's and men's brains are the same?[/quote]
Yes, there are certain physical/biological differences in male/female brain structure, but it's not clear that it results in any measurable difference in cognitive ability.

The links you post are pretty much all to sociological studies using visual and verbal tests - it's nearly impossible to rule out cultural/education bias from these sort of tests (unless you are solely testing monkeys/infants). Males and females are treated differently from the moment of birth: so far as we know, this has a bigger difference on cognitive development than any biological differences.

The links you post are pretty much all to sociological studies using visual and verbal tests - it's nearly impossible to rule out cultural/education bias from these sort of tests (unless you are solely testing monkeys/infants). Males and females are treated differently from the moment of birth: so far as we know, this has a bigger difference on cognitive development than any biological differences.

The problem is that testing infants will only show a significant difference in their amygdala since this is the first part of the brain to develop and stimulates further development. This can be noted from an earlier study I posted. Studying primates will also not have accurate results since cultural influences will have not played a role in either's genders evolution. The only study that would work is one where several groups of identical twins, girl and boy are both raised in a controlled environment.