Philosophers have the highest IQ

Yes a philosopher will not be easy to adapt to any profession, not because of the difficulty but the professional glossary.

Dapthar
Quote/So you're stating that Philosophers posses the proper tools to adapt to other fields, and the only barrier are the technical terms? Are you serious? Philosophy is not that efficient of an exercise for one's mind. The concepts in Mathematics are what present the difficulty, not the terminology, and I assert that Philosophy doesn't prepare one for the mental acrobatics that Mathematics requires./

Remember how the word "philosophy" comes from? A man with wisdom can do a better job in any profession.
Math is reputed as mind agility demanding. A laborman can not afford it. But mind agility is not enough for philosophy, transforming mind agility into wisdom needs other properties like sense of responsibility, being balanced emotionally, ie, dancing gracefully between subjectiveness and objectiveness, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think a phi-concept is far more difficult to grasp than a math one since you said they are"axiomatic".

Dapthar
quote/Yes, but "axiomatic" ¡Ù easy. In Philosophy, almost all interpretations are equally valid, but this is not true in Mathematics. If one doesn't understand the definition of a limit, there is no "alternate and equally valid" idea to revert to, granted, there are certain pictures one can draw, and an intuitive notion is extremely helpful, but it all hinges upon the definition, and if one can't find some way to understand that definition, then you're out of luck./

axiomatic=/=difficult, neither.
"In Philosophy, almost all interpretations are equally valid, but this is not true in Mathematics." That is funny.

That is why we call it like ghost-depicting, because the concept comes before the extensions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How much effort is dependent on how much you want to gain, not the subject

Dapthar
Quote/To the contrary, the effort one must put in to a field to understand it is directly proportional to the difficult of the subject./

I did not see any "contrary" here. My statement is also proportional. But I would like to make it clearer. With the subject held the same, the efforts by different people are different to achieve the same degree of understanding. With the same effort, or studying hours if you agree and same subject, the degree varies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

3,I doubt the statistics by this thread because who can be called a phi-man is highly questionable.

Dapthar/quote/I don't really get what you're saying here, perhaps that your original "rarity" argument was flawed since the number of people in a field is at best a mediocre indicator of its difficulty? Something else perhaps?/

How would you judge a person as a phi-man or not, a book? a degree? a review? and how would you grade them as successful ones?

The number of participants in a game is decided by supply/demand of a mraket, but how many of them will become great is not. you can have a whole bunch of them being "mediocre".

 

4,difficulty exists in any profession and can deter any one, for instance, walking is simple but can you walk on hands, on one hand? on a finger? The same is true with math, you can build a math maze that no one can solve or simply there is no solution to it, but this is not an indication of wisdom.

Dapthar/quote/Neither is formulation of a Philosophical paradox, which is an analogue of the example you are trying to use. Again, a moot point, for it goes "against" both Mathematics and Philosophy.

I hope that you are going to return to supporting your ideas now that you are done with this aside./

I don't know if my answers are up to your satisfaction but feel free to ask.

Are you assuming phi as paradoxes or built on paradoxes?

 

i think i new scientific theory takes far more knowledge, creativity and understanding than coming up with a new philosopical argument or theory. the level of understanding that being a skilled scientist requires is far greater than that of a philosopher. anyone can make a philosophical argument. it takes many years of training and hard work to even skim the surface of understanding a science.

 

Comimg with an arguement is one, but with a system is another.

 

all philosopher haev are arguments. their impact is minimal. it is more of a personal exploration than anything.

 

Are you about to reduce this to slogan throwing?

 

if thats what i am doing, then i guess so. the depth of science is so much deeper than tat of philosophy. to make an impact in this realm requires a brilliance and foundation as well an insight into the world none before you have had. and when you are successful, it is irrefutable. this is the universe we are talking about. its truths are undeniable. regardless of the reasoning a philosopher may give, i can simply say that i dont buy his premise so everything else he says is moot. nothing a philosopher can ever say is universal.

 

Isn't that a universal statement? Does that mean it isn't true?

 

RE shrubby pegasus

You cannot compare/meassure the depth of science (or philosophy) - though it would be interesting if it were possible eg. on a boek cover would be printed:
<B>READABILITY</b>:
minimaly required IQ = 125, recomender 135 optimal = 150

That way we would be able to asses the "depth" of the subject of the book. Untill then your statment is an poetic expression of a feeling (not usable in the realms of either science or philosophy).

This is applicable not only to science but also to any kind of brilliancy (philosophy, art, sport, what ever). What impact do we make when we come to atletic field? or when we start to sing?

Not true. Take eg. flogiston theory Widely believed true in the scientific world for a long time before it was disproved.

Also a statement which can be broadly applied to many fields/ activities: Everybody can draw a rabit but it doesn't make him a Rembrant.

Let's take Descartes : Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am) - this is purely philosophical premise, you cannot disprove it. Can you?

 

Well, this took a little longer than I expected to finish, but after a couple more long replies have been dealt with, I will return to my regular posting habits. Enjoy.

That is when I interpreted your statement, I wrote: "From this statement, I tend to get the impression that...", so as to make it clear that I may actually be misinterpreting your post, and give you an opportunity to clarify your meaning.

Again, due partly to a misconception on your part and a lack of clarity on my part.

It happens to everyone sometimes.

Yes, one could say that, since it is not the goal of Mathematics to do so, however, it is akin to saying that a blender is too limited to make toast, i.e. it is not truly a fair comparison to say something is too limited to address a problem it was not designed to solve.

I do not feel it appropriate for me to speak on the current views regarding the universe in Physics, but I can state that how the universe came into being has no effect upon Mathematics, and Mathematics puts forth no such theory as to how the universe began, simply because it is not a concern of the field.

To my knowledge, I put forth no "model", but let's see where you take this.

Doubtful. Are ants less suited to live since they, (by most accounts) have less Mathematical prowess than humans? No. Do humans destroy ants because of this reason? Most likely not. Thus, one can see that your argument is flawed. In reality, until computers attain sentience, their theoretical Mathematical abilities will be far below that of humanity. Even sentience is no guarantee of Mathematical ability. Why? Ask anyone who claims to do poorly in Mathematics, and you'll find a sentient creature that does not posses considerable Mathematical skill.

Proofs (Which I believe you are referring to, please correct me if I am wrong.) are based upon assumptions, i.e. axioms and definitions, which are assumed to be true. If one accepts these assumptions, then the "model" is complete.

Unless Aristotle contributed to Mathematics in some way unknown to myself, I doubt it. Even if he did, it would be a contribution to the system of education in general, and not the field of Mathematics.

Again, you are missing the issue. I asked for an example of Philosophy aiding the field of Mathematics, not those who study it.

It could be said, but it is incorrect, for reasons already described earlier regarding subfields.

This is correct. By "axiomatic" I thought you were referring to the axiomatic system, not the axioms themselves.

However, if the axioms are not what most would consider to be reasonable assumptions, then they are essentially useless. I could build an axiomatic system where all additions are off by 1, i.e. 1+1 would equal 3 instead of 2. Most likely, alternate versions of all other theorems that exist could be derived, but they would not be what almost any person who studies Mathematics would consider reasonable, since they were based on a premise most would consider false. Thus, your (implied) assertion of freedom of choice with the axioms is a bit off kilter. Not necessarily incorrect, but not truly reasonable. (Such is the English language, eh?)

Ok, so I don't get the point you're driving at. Would you mind clarifying it? What is the relevance of the lack of young Philosophers?

I can assure you that almost no one embarks on a study of theoretical Mathematics because of financial reasons. Applied Mathematics is another story.

It also makes accomplishment of any result that could be considered significant nigh impossible as well, which was one of my earlier points.

No. Without a well-established set of ideas that are assumed to be true, logic is essentially useless. See my earlier example with the system where 1 + 1 equals 3.

No, it doesn't. But since Philosophy utilizes language instead of symbolic logic, it inherits all of the flaws inherent in language itself, the vagueness, the paradoxes, etc.

Language is a tool to express ideas, not one to examine them with, e.g. one builds a circuit with completely different tools then one uses to examine it with. Why? Construction tools are generally not suited for diagnostics, and language is no exception to this assertion.

That was not my intention. My aim with the large blue text was to bring main ideas to other posters who may be skimming the thread in hopes of drawing more minds into the discussion. All of this was clearly explained in my note, which you apparently skipped or paid no heed to.

I should have stated that "physical reality is no longer a concern of Mathematics", since that is what I meant. I recognize that the concept of a number arose, in part, from physical reality, but physical reality has not been a concern of Mathematics since then.

Please clarify. The only relevant prior reference I see is that of language being the tool of Philosophy, rather than symbolic logic, but, that does not seem to shed light on what you are referring to as my assumption or my error.

Yes, and I explained why, and you quoted my explanation. If you want further clarification, you will have to ask about a specific aspect of my post.

Emotional? The only word that I noted that could be perceived as emotional was "absurd", and it was simply used as my choice of adjective with no emotional subtext intended.

Essentially, common sense. The "Philosophical" was something I neglected to delete prior to posting.

The study of Philosophy does not teach one wisdom, it teaches one Philosophy, and these two concepts are not the same thing.

I already refuted a similar argument with a "superset/subset" rationale. It applies here as well, since if Philosophy was a more mentally demanding subject than Mathematics, it would be relatively easy for Philosophers to become Mathematicians, but, as reality contests, it obviously is not.

I believe in almost all subjects the concept must exist before it is extended. Perhaps you are referring to something else?

The contradiction is that you asserted the effort one must put into a field is dependent on what one wants to gain, while I stated that the effort one must put forth is intrinsically related to the difficulty of the subject.

With this clarification, your statement now essentially agrees with mine, although the "same degree of understanding" may pose some problems later on.

A degree seems to be a reasonable option. What level of degree to consider (Bachelor's, Master's or Ph.D.) can be decided by you.

A certain level of dedication must be put forth to posses a degree of some sort, thus (hopefully) filtering out most of the "mediocre" applicants.

If they aren't, I ask.

No. You were attempting to reduce the difficulty of Mathematics to Mathematical Paradoxes, and using those to show that those "[are] not [indicative] of wisdom", and I stated that the same argument could be applied to Philosophy, thus, it was a moot point.

You falsely assume that S.P. is a Philosopher. If he/she is not, there is no paradox.

That would just be forcing some other arbitrary and controversial "standard", which would not achieve the purpose you seek. Frankly, it would only serve to be a self-reinforcing mechanism of IQ, since if someone with an IQ of say, 100 only reads books within their IQ range, they will most likely never improve. (This is all under the assumption, that, for the moment, IQ is a valid measure of anything, which I personally believe it not to be.)

I believe that if you take all of S.P.'s comments as referring exclusively to Mathematics, then everything he said is essentially correct. Once something is proven in Mathematics it remains true, if one assumes the axioms are true, of course.

 

Dapthar:
Quote/
However, if the axioms are not what most would consider to be reasonable assumptions, then they are essentially useless. I could build an axiomatic system where all additions are off by 1, i.e. 1+1 would equal 3 instead of 2. Most likely, alternate versions of all other theorems that exist could be derived, but they would not be what almost any person who studies Mathematics would consider reasonable, since they were based on a premise most would consider false. Thus, your (implied) assertion of freedom of choice with the axioms is a bit off kilter. Not necessarily incorrect, but not truly reasonable. (Such is the English language, eh?)/


your way of answering is really something unusual. It tends to take the discussion out of context. I hope this is not what you intend.


By reason, you refer to if it is true to reality, in this case, "Reasonable" is not a correct word.
with math it should be true or false to its own logics.
As I mentioned already, math works as abstracts of physical reality, what kind of math is applicable depend on what physical factors effecting.
only when considering if there is a match between the math and physical case, we call it reasonable or not.
Math tries to reflects the effecting physical factors and their relationship, that is why they try to keep math "reasonable", otherwise it is useless except for fun or exercise of deduction.

 

Since we are asked not to post long text, here but the URL's, there is a list of major plilosophical contribution to mathematics "Philosophers on Mathematics"

 

Dapthar:
Two points for your consideration:
1;you lower the efficiency of this discussion, below average level of response.
2;you make others' response inconvenient.
That could be a sign of lack of wisdom.

 

yinyin it seems that you reduce math to a triviallity that can be mastered and revolutionized by anyone. this leads me to believe that you know very little of what it takes to be a successful scienctist/mathematician. having the understanding to make a contribution in these fields is not as simple as you set forth. the necessary insight to realize something that has never been realized before in the history of the world is really a substantial feat. very few have it. being able to solve some random math problem does not mean one understands math. mathematicians do not sit around workin problems over and over. they try to discover new math. i really think you need to understand the difference between working problems and being a scientist before you can draw any conclusions on the intelligence required to be succeed here.

anyone can create a philosophy based upon what they have experienced. it requires no unique insight. there in lies the subjectivity and relativity of philosophy.

 

How did you get there?

If you read carefully, you can find the answer,I really don't want to repeat.

 

Dapthar:
quote/A degree seems to be a reasonable option. What level of degree to consider (Bachelor's, Master's or Ph.D.) can be decided by you./

That may explain some of the controversy.
To my understanding, to be a phi-man must come up with a system including natural sciences/history/social sciences. Your standard substantially lower the credibility.
And a sad truth is that a large amout of phi-ideas comes from non-degree holders.

 

maybe you should take your own advice. i have seen what you have said, and it isnt of any merit