Jplus wrote:Actually we do teach (logical) reasoning en masse, at least in the richer parts of the world. From primary school onwards, we challenge and instruct our children to use reasoning to solve all kinds of tasks.
No, in general we (the american educational establishment) train students to solve specific problems. No non-post secondary public system requires nor even really advocates taking a class in reasoning, we have all but thrown out classical trivium in favor of training components of an economy. We request that students solve problems, pull important pieces of text, understand content within text (something you just demonstrated a failure in doing), do algebra and learn of the knowledge previous generations have discovered. But those have very few similarities with formal study in reason.
You are right that we don't teach reason explicitly (which I didn't mean to suggest anyway), but note that most of the concrete tasks that we train our children to do can be solved with reason. Still, in most children the only effect is that they learn to do the tasks and not to do reasoning in general. Perhaps we're not encouraging them enough to make the abstraction, but at least what I said up to that point supports the notion that (most) humans are not "naturally inclined" to use reason.
I understand why you don't like to put it that way: we have a social taboo on anything that may suggest that some people are significantly more intelligent than others. Unfortunately the taboo drives us away from reality. It causes us to expect normal people to behave as if they can apply highly sophisticated reasoning schemes such as logic. That's just as unfair as expecting every normal person to be able to write a good essay or to be able to lift a 200 kg barbell. We really have to come to terms with the fact that systematic reasoning is not a normal skill, because as long as we don't we will be putting unreasonable expectations on normal people as well trivializing the abilities of those who can actually do it.
You are equating intelligence to logic syllogisms.
No, I'm anticipating the possibility that other people will do so. Saying that some people have some kind of cognitive capability while others do not always causes the audience to think that you find those people more intelligent. Which is not what's being said; who is to judge how a syllogism master compares to a chess master with regard to intelligence?
(The problem is probably exactly that we're using "intelligence" as some kind of catch-all term for cognitive abilities, leading us to the false impression that it is a onedimensional feature.)
Zcorp wrote:Which shows no understanding of what is technically meant by intelligence. I've not once stated that there is not variance within in intelligence, so you certainly do not understand why I don't like it stated that way. Maybe you yourself should look up something that is more basic than syllogisms. Try Red Herrings.
I have claimed that properly solving syllogisms is a rare ability, just like writing good essays or lifting a 200 kg barbell. I linked to a paper where the test subjects were graduate students and which seems to support my claim, but of course I might still be wrong. However, I don't see why you have to be so upset by it. I can't help but think that some kind of taboo must be at play.
Zcorp wrote:Common Folk can't learn to read either right? They just don't have the breeding. Its all nature.
False comparison. This seems to be a red herring that is distracting you
@sourmìlk: you are so utterly stubborn that it's almost amusing. Chew on this one, it's one of my favourites:
Robert A. Adams - Calculus, a complete course wrote:Let N be the largest positive integer.
Since 1 is a positive integer, we must have N >= 1.
Since N2 is a positive integer, it cannot exceed the largest positive integer.
Therefore, N2 <= N and so N2 - N <= 0.
Thus, N(N - 1) <= 0 and we must have N - 1 <= 0.
Therefore, N <= to 1.
We also know that N is greater than or equal to 1; therefore N = 1.
Therefore, 1 is the largest positive integer.