I don't go with IQ tests either as overall measure of a person. But they do measure analytical reasoning. I just point out that those with high IQ also have the type of enquiring minds to figure out the true context of science, and it is not the view that is commonly popularised.
Nope, since your overall IQ is an averaging of skills in math (subject to potential issues depending on schooling), spatial reasoning, short term memory, and analytical thinking, it won't give a good indication of how good you are in any of those areas unless you know the individual scores and the test was tailored to classes that you have taken. Plus, even the individual scores generally aren't in those specific areas. When I took an IQ test, it focused on reading, writing, math, memory, and spatial reasoning, and compiled that information between 4 different numbers representing language skills, memory, mathematics, and spatial reasoning. I couldn't tell you which, if any of those, measured my analytical thinking. It ended up being 119 in math, 133 in memory, 81 in spatial reasoning, and a ridiculous 155 in language skills. How could one expect the average between those of 122 to represent me overall when it's only close to my skills in math, as measured using multiple questions from calculus, a class I hadn't even taken yet?
Suffice to say, one's IQ score won't tell you anything about what a person is particularly good or bad at.
This matters to us as Christians.
It is only the popular misconceived view that puts science into conflict with religion.
When you see it as just a model and process for investigation and development of that model, there is no philosophical conflict.
-_- people don't usually take issue with the scientific method itself. They take issue with specific conclusions. Some people strawman science to suggest people are claiming it is infallible (obviously not true). Others go in the opposite direction, suggesting that scientific conclusions cannot conflict with their beliefs because the degree of certainty in science is less than how certain they feel in their beliefs. That is, since scientific conclusions always have the potential to be disproven, they just assume that any which disagree with them on a fundamental level eventually will be disproven.
Both are extremely dishonest outlooks. While no theory in science can claim to be 100% guaranteed to be an accurate depiction of reality, they can get so close that to consider any other conclusion to be likely would be silly without additional evidence.
It explains what things are normally observed to do within limits of our observation, not what they are nor why they exist. It does not explain where gravity comes from or why it exists or why it shows the strength it does. It just measures something we model as gravity.
Depends on what you mean by "why". Theories can explain why phenomena occur in the context of other relevant phenomena, but they don't grant purpose to anything. That's because nothing objectively has a purpose unless it is designed for it. So to assume purpose is to assume design as well, but science doesn't do that, so the entire idea of things like gravity having a purpose isn't accounted for in theories related to it.
So Study the context of science and then you start questioning whether a law is part of the universe , or a part of an axiomatic model (eg that equation - more properly expressed as an identity) , or a statement as to how far the universe and model correspond (which is actually ohms law). And if nothing else re read this paragraph, so you understand those distinctions.
-_- if it'll get you to cease ranting about it, I read it three times.
I assure you that equation is a definition of resistance. Ohms law dictates an envelope in which it is used, but many materials do not obey ohms law. Sadly the subtle but very real distinctions are lost on most people - even many professors - and when studying the philosophical context of science rather than the application, nit picking the definitions matters..
Science doesn't have a philosophy. They are two separate disciplines. If people could entirely separate the two, they would, because all philosophy does is serve to make scientific efforts less accurate. It is a part of the "human error" of experiments. It can result in very dissimilar interpretation of identical data, which should not happen.
If you are capable, check out Einsteins comments on the cosmological constant and why he considered it his greatest blunder,
-_- by the way, if you want me to read something, actually link it yourself next time. To summarize, it was a blunder because Eithstein's theory of general relativity functioned well for a universe that was expanding, so his "fix" of adding the cosmological constant just made it more inaccurate. That's the entire reason for his regret; he presumed the universe was static, noticed his theory didn't work in an optimal way with that model of the universe, the static model was disproven, and so he realized he had wasted his time.
Science is a field that seeks to better understand the world, and we are bound to make some errors along the way. As long as we continue to improve, so too will our utilization of the knowledge we have gained. Note how Einstein's mistake didn't last indefinitely. We learned more about the universe, and changed our thinking accordingly. He didn't double down, asserting that the universe must be static. Accepting the possibility of being wrong is a huge part of science, and while it is fine to regret mistakes, it is never okay to deny them.
I thought some might be interested.
You present information in a way that is great for fostering disinterest in simple, easy to explain topics.
But you didn't even try to explain the difference between Ohm's law and the equation often associated with it in a way that anyone could have understood. You did it so that only people with a scientific education could get it.
To better explain axiomatic model, etc., I'm going to write it out.
The equation grants meaning to the terms in the equation that matches up with reality, which are current (I), voltage(V), and resistance (R).
Ohm's law is a written out statement that this is how reality is observed to function in regards to these items, current, voltage, and resistance.
Here is Ohm's law word for word: "The potential difference (voltage) across an ideal conductor is proportional to the current through it. The constant of proportionality is called the "resistance", R."
How hard was it to say it that way? No wonder you think only "people with an IQ of 160" easily understand this stuff when you make no effort to communicate it better.
I am willing to bet that you are going to try to nitpick my simplified versions. Go ahead, show me how you could explain this stuff to a layman better than I could. Demonstrate that you could have been using simple terms the whole time and you chose not to.
