Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:40:15 +0800
From: nicola taylor <nmtaylor-AT-carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: Re: BHA: magic and science




Carrol Cox wrote:

>If we are going to use imagination as a test of how science
>works we need to imagine a situation that is scientifically intelligible
-- and
>"a" gene for intelligence is as bizarre as any imagined magical act, since
>"Intelligence" as a single trait or even at all narrowly defined complex
>of traits simply does not exist. So I at least can't imagine a gene for
>intelligence -- it's something like a unicellular elephant.
>
>Carrol
>

This is the point.  The assumptions that enable science are imaginative
acts.  Intelligence is exactly this:  a 'general' construct that allows
measurement of particular capabilities on an individual basis (usually the
capabilities that develop during a formal 'Western-style' education).
While the construct is imaginary, the effects on people's lives are not -
think of all those exams you took at school, and the entrance criteria for
many universities.  Whether you believe in the existence of 'intelligence'
or whether you consider it (as scientists do) a working assumption from
which theories and hypotheses are derived, your school exam results will
very likely be used by administrators to distinguish the 'smarties' from
the 'dingbats'.  This is because school results 'predict' university
'performance' fairly well - they should, because they measure many of the
same acquired abilities.  

I am quite sure that a gene for 'intelligence' will be found:  in the sense
that scientists will be able to predict on the basis of a particular gene
-or combination of genes - which children will perform better than other
children on formal academic tests, with some degree of certainty (for
arguments sake, let's say 90% of the time).  Since this kind of 'scientific
outcome' is highly valued in many societies, there will inevitably be
people who wish to select their offspring on this basis.  The practices
(laws etc) of a particular society may or may not enable them to do so.   

To go back to Collin's argument, Einstein's formula does not exist except
in the imagination (it is beyond proof), but it it enabled testable
predictions that resulted in the splitting of the atom.  The effects on the
people of Hiroshima were devastating - whether you believe in the formula
or not.  On this point, I agree with Collin completely.  Indeed, the only
difference between myself and Colin is that he find's the 'outcomes' of
science meaningful in isolation from the practices and imaginative acts of
science.  I do not.  I consider that these elements are inseparably
related, in the sense that outcomes depend upon whose imaginary
irrationalities are developed.

Sorry about the slow response - have been v. buzy
cheers
Nicky



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---