No, Putin. My question doesn't assume that at all. My question merely goes to the fact that intelligence has to do with one's ability to analyze, think, and come to conclusions; so those beliefs that one holds without having analyzed or thought about much are simply not good gauges of one's intelligence. I'm not saying one side isn't right -- just that a lot of the people who hold the right view would probably do a really terrible job actually defending it if challenged, and if one heard them trying, one might quickly come to different conclusions about their intelligence, or at least its relationship to that belief.

Yeah, God Did It Guy is stupid.

So it IS smugness, AWB.

Good engineers don't think about why the math behind their engineering works, necessarily, so I don't get why you think engineers would have greater critical thinking skills than the "person off the street" who can recite biology information. Find me an engineer off the street who can provide proofs for the Boolean logic which informs their discipline.

I was talking about intelligence, not critical thinking skills. Good engineers typically are intelligent by most definitions of the word.

Semck, the problem with arguing with idiots is that people might not be able to tell which is which. ;-)

Nah, no one on this thread is an idiot. I just wanted to use another of my Redneck Calendar Saying-of-the-Day Texasisms.

This has been more fun than datin' twins, but I's got to get some shuteye. G'night all.

Ooooooooooh God......

Are you still fighting the Battle of Texas??? O.o

Amazing, just amazing, I go out of my way to try and be even and fair to both electoral points of view and the differences between the Coasts and Bible Belt/Heartland...

And Putin comes in and...

And you realize this whole thread's description is about the GOP and the Hispanic electorate...

And now Putin's begun a war on Texans.

Great.
Just great.
Way to kill the thread.

(Go get 'em, Thucy...)

Dan Rather/10.

In any event, Republicans don't have an immigration policy even if we ignore the whole how-the-US-got-the-Southwest thing. Deporting 400,000 people a year - none of whom are entitled to legal representation during their deportation hearings, by the way - until all twelve to fourteen million are gone seems to be a losing proposition.

"I was talking about intelligence, not critical thinking skills. Good engineers typically are intelligent by most definitions of the word."

*Sigh*. Here is what you said.

"My question merely goes to the fact that intelligence has to do with one's ability to analyze, think, and come to conclusions; so those beliefs that one holds without having analyzed or thought about much are simply not good gauges of one's intelligence."

This and your loaded hypothetical from earlier clearly indicates that critical thinking is a big part of your notion as to what intelligence entails.

Oh I see. Thanks for explaining.

Here's what's wrong with your argument, then. Follow closely. This gets a little complicated.

First off, before I even start, I should probably point out that, from your prior post, I inferred a definition of "critical thinking" that involved actually CHOOSING to do the analysis undergirding a particular belief -- a distinct question, obviously, from how well one would do it if one did it. So for example, you mentioned -- as an example of lack of critical thinking -- that an engineer would not be able to give proofs of Boolean logic. Well, I'm sure we both probably agree that any engineer who's using Boolean logic well would be able to LEARN how to prove it -- he just hasn't. So you were using critical thinking to mean, among other things anyway, the choice to actually analyze those arguments that undergird one's beliefs. I accepted this definition as suitable to the context.

Now, however, you are trying to suggest that it means ABILITY to analyze, think, and come to conclusions well. This is also a fine definition, but it's a DIFFERENT definition, and you can't just interchange the two. This is, indeed, very close to core intelligence, to my way of thinking.

So, let's call the former definition CT-1 (the choice to analyze); the second one CT-2 (the ability to analyze); and intelligence, we'll call intelligence.

Now, as between the people in my "loaded" hypothetical, NEITHER displays CT-1, while the engineer does have intelligence to a high degree and (thus) presumably CT-2. Whether the second person has them is unknown. Hence, the key question was whether you would infer, just from the fact that person 2 believes in evolution for reasons unrelated to an actual use of intelligence (or of either form of critical thinking) that he actually excels better at analysis.

I look forward to your answer.

I will also say that I don't see my hypothetical as loaded at all. Lots of very good engineers are skeptical of evolution; indeed, perhaps at a higher rate than any other sciencey discipline. I know several personally, both religious and irreligious.

Are we still talking about religion and atheism? This is an immigration thread.

Man, AWB, atheism hadn't even been mentioned till now. Well done.

But yeah.... if you want it to go back to immigration, say something about immigration.

I believe that our current system is broken and that our political leaders must come to an agreement on how to reform it.

/thread

I have previously referenced a survey which firmly established that the vast majority of biologists were atheists who have a belief in the theory of evolution as an all encompassing paradigm of human behaviour. Consequently, I venture to suggest that, in some cases, a certain measure of anti-theism attracts them to biology in the first place. We all have to struggle with our prejudices and pre-conceived ideas, I suppose.
Physicists, and particularly cosmologists, were much more likely to be theists and I also venture to suggest that this is the result of their encounter with the issue of First Cause. Indeed, many of them espouse the concept of a creationism which encompasses natural selection; God working through evolution if you like.
I guess these views make some atheists unhappy as intelligent people holding these ''creationist'' ideas do not conform to the straw man that they often endeavour to construct.

"he just hasn't. So you were using critical thinking to mean, among other things anyway, the choice to actually analyze those arguments that undergird one's beliefs. I accepted this definition as suitable to the context.
"

And you assume engineers would "choose" to think analytically and critically and problematize their worldview? Why? I just don't get your engineer example at all. Engineers like things a certain way and don't want to problematize it. Problematizing means disorder. Engineers make spreadsheets for everything they do. They label everything. Things are done in a certain sequence. They aren't questioned. I wouldn't be surprised if a greater percentage unthinkingly believed in god.

"I will also say that I don't see my hypothetical as loaded at all. Lots of very good engineers are skeptical of evolution; indeed, perhaps at a higher rate than any other sciencey discipline."

So what? What do these two things have to do with the fact that your question was loaded to get a particular outcome you wanted. Namely, to think up a skewed hypothetical in order to try to make the idea that belief in basic scientific principles like evolution was a sign of intelligence was ridiculous omg engineers are so smart.

*because omg engineers are so smart.

"Consequently, I venture to suggest that, in some cases, a certain measure of anti-theism attracts them to biology in the first place. We all have to struggle with our prejudices and pre-conceived ideas, I suppose."

It boggles my mind how you have no problem smearing an entire discipline time and time again. No, it couldn't be that biologists are atheists because that's what their years of study have demonstrated to them. Something you're willing to credit to physicists because they supposedly are more inclined to your bullshit superstition than biologists. No, of course not. In biologists case, they're simply biased anti-theists. In the case of physics, they're open minded and ascribe to views that reflect their study.

"Indeed, many of them espouse the concept of a creationism which encompasses natural selection"

Which you don't even agree with, being on a jihad against natural selection since time immemorial.

Also, somebody tell Victor Stenger and Stephen Hawking that their field is replete with theists. I'm sure they'd be tickled.

"And you assume engineers would "choose" to think analytically and critically and problematize their worldview? Why? I just don't get your engineer example at all. Engineers like things a certain way and don't want to problematize it. Problematizing means disorder. Engineers make spreadsheets for everything they do. They label everything. Things are done in a certain sequence. They aren't questioned."

Bwahahahaha!!!!! You are such a fucking idiot! I'm a software engineer and we most certainly do *not* stick to inside the box thinking and everything having to be a preset way. We are creative people who think outside of the box to develop solutiuons that have never been concieved of before to new and challenging problems. And we do so while conceiving all of the possible ways the product could be misused that we can think of and do our best to reduce undesirable side effects. I know many mechanical, electrical, computer, chemical and especially NDT engineers who work like I do and have been responsible for the advances in technology that make our civilization what it is today. You seem to be confusing real engineering with electromechanical product designers and architectural designers whose first goal is safety/standards while bringing the artistic senior level product designers and architects views to life.

Putin, this time, I have to say you *must* stop speaking about a subject you clearly have limited knbowledge of. Stick to your poli-sci and let people who are actually engineers and scientists speak to how they do their jobs. Cause honestly, your opinion about engineers is total fucking bullshit.

HANG IN THERE NEWT!

Replace the candidate Obama will most likely beat with the one who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell!

WTF is 'software engineering'? Did they do away with the term 'computer science'? Sounds like a gross misuse of the term, about as reasonable as "literature engineer" for writer.

Heh:

http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm

@ Draug when it comes to political ''science'' man give me media studies every day of the week. :-)

Really, it is the height of irony that someone who plays a balance of power based game for fun has disdain for political science. Thucydides? Machiavelli? These were political scientists, you clown.

Is economics a science:
''Our 21st-century housing bubble, now deflated, was inflated despite—indeed partially because of—amazing computer power, reams of data, and sophisticated models operated by exceptionally bright analysts informed by Nobel Prize-winning financial theories. These computerized models created a sense of security, just as did the “superior commercial knowledge” of 1825.''

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/november/is-economics-a-science

And you still won't reveal whatever bullshit field it is you study, coward.

See, putin, I said to follow closely, but you didn't. Please try again.

I'm NOT claiming that this particular engineer IS likely to analyze or think about his beliefs. Neither he NOR the other person is. BY HYPOTHESIS, neither of them has analyzed their beliefs at all. So they both fail at definition 1 of critical thinking. But definition 1 of critical thinking is NOT particularly related to intelligence.

By contrast, he has a lot of intelligence, being a very good engineer (and of course, he may well be reflective about engineering questions. Not everybody is reflective about everything, but they may be about some things). My point is, we have NO evidence that person 2 does or doesn't have intelligence. We just know that he has a particular unreflective opinion on one particular issue. But by your argument, that is enough by itself to say he's more _intelligent_ -- more analytically able -- than our engineer, who we know is good at analyzing those things he chooses to analyze. And all this EVEN THOUGH we know by stipulation that person 2 has not analyzed his evolution belief at all.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this. I'll just have to trust independent third-party readers to see how absurd your position is if in fact you still stick to saying person 2 is smarter as a result of his belief.

Now, moving on, I'd like all to enjoy the following pickings from this thread:

putin: "Engineers like things a certain way and don't want to problematize it. Problematizing means disorder. Engineers make spreadsheets for everything they do. They label everything. Things are done in a certain sequence. They aren't questioned. I wouldn't be surprised if a greater percentage unthinkingly believed in god."

putin: "It boggles my mind how you have no problem smearing an entire discipline time and time again."

Ah, putin. If it weren't for you, this forum would probably have to hire entertainers.