[voidhorse]

But it’s a very naive and limited conception of intelligence that equates intellegence strictly with mathematical reasoning (and perhaps experimentation).

There are many forms of intellect. For example, plenty of people that excel in mathematics and physics have a horrible time of expressing themselves linguistically and are usually not very good at socializing.

And let’s be really honest then: the vast majority of people that are good at rigorous studies and “hard” sciences are actually people who don’t question accepted beliefs—they use an entire framework of reasoning without ever questioning it on a day to day basis. Hardly skeptics. In fact one of the best qualities you can have as a scientist is to follow mundane proceedures without questioning a thing and regardless of the changing circumstances.

[jf-]

Yes, I equate intelligence with reasoning. For me, and realistically most everyone else, intelligence is the ability to reason, formulate solutions to problems and to quickly grasp concepts.

There are a host of other skills that are worthwhile and desirable and whatever else, but why pretend that they are the same thing as intelligence?

I’m not sure I understand the relevance of your skeptics comment.

Edit: you added this since I wrote my reply:

> In fact one of the best qualities you can have as a scientist is to follow mundane proceedures without questioning a thing and regardless of the changing circumstances.

I’m afraid you now just sound like you have a chip on your shoulder.

[voidhorse]

Your differentiation between "intelligence" and "other skills" partially refutes Paul's point in the article. If we were to take your definition, Paul's saying that physicists, because they're better at ratiocination should be good enough at french literature to get a PHD, but based on your claim french literature involves a host of abilities that have nothing to do with intelligence (not strict ratiocination or problem solving) so how could we possibly conclude from the fact that physicists are better at ratiocination that they're therefore better equipped to learn about French literature than french lit profs are to learn about ratiocination and subsequently physics?

It's also predicated on an imprecise and singular use of the term "reason". Do you mean calculation? Or do you mean analogical thinking (the construction of metaphors, "grasping concepts"), for instance, both of which could be called forms of reason but both of which are very different.

It's a totally inane question.

Claims like Paul's are just the intellectual equivalent of chest puffing. Don't get roped into the stupidity. This kind of attitude causes divisions and turns you into a prideful douche. It's indicative most of all that the author takes an extreme pride in whatever he takes to be his "intellect." Goliaths' waiting for their Davids.

As for the skeptics, what I mean is that working scientists usually can't engage in radical questioning--this is left to mathematicians (in the pure sense) and philosophers. They need to have faith, just like everyone else, that their systems work. While the application of reason provides probabilistic assurances around certainty you leave the realm of complete, inviolable certainty as soon as you exit the heaven of pure theory and turn it into practice.

[jf-]

> Claims like Paul's are just the intellectual equivalent of chest puffing. Don't get roped into the stupidity. This kind of attitude causes divisions and turns you into a prideful douche. It's indicative most of all that the author takes an extreme pride in whatever he takes to be his "intellect." Goliaths' waiting for their Davids.

Do you not see yourself in this paragraph?

Anyway, I’m sure French literature is a noble pursuit.

[voidhorse]

To some extent, yes. My delivery has certainly been agressive and douchy--but all I'm advocating for is a broader acceptance of the value of other's intellectual pursuits--are the pursuits of physicists extremely impressive? Undoubtedly so. Does that mean we have to initiate a dick measuring contest about the respective intelligence of the members of different academic fields? No. It's totally useless! At least in my view.

[inimino]

> the vast majority of people that are good at rigorous studies and “hard” sciences are actually people who don’t question accepted beliefs—they use an entire framework of reasoning without ever questioning it on a day to day basis.

This is of course true. But if you think this is an any way unique to the hard sciences, I have some humanities departments full of people I'd love to introduce you to.

[voidhorse]

Fair point. I wholeheartedly agree. The issue is, it is not the humanities profs, in this case, or at this time, that are claiming intellectual superiority. (funnily enough, it's not even a physicist that's claiming the intellectual superiority for physicists, but rather a venture capitalist computer scientist--this should be nice flag as to the dubiousness of the claim).

[inimino]

One of the very awkward things about things you can't say is they often come in opposite pairs.

So for example, you can't say that physicists are on the whole clearly working with more intellectual horsepower than literature majors. You also can't say that STEM folks tend to be some of the most blindly religious (though not about "religion") and closed-minded folks in the academy, with some of the most strongly held unexamined beliefs at the core of their epistemology and personal identity. Despite being unsayable, both these things are true.

Skepticism, self-awareness and self-doubt, leading to contemplation, thoughtful uncertainty, wisdom or enlightenment... it may be just as possible to find all these things through pure mathematics or physics as through comparative religion, literature, or philosophy, but it surely isn't as common. Regardless, wherever you look, they will be rare.