= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on How to provide a simple example to the requirement of falsifiability in the scientific method to a novice audience? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (57)
Take Howard Gardner theory of multiple intelligences. The world is fair. Some people have musical–rhythmic intelligence while other people have logical–mathematical intelligence.
Gardner theory has intuitive merit. But if you start to think about falsifiabilition you come to the question of whether the multiple intelligences really are different or whether they correlate positively with each other.
Hmm. Then we shouldn't be able to find someone who was rubbish at maths and music at the same time. Or good at both. Easily falsifiable.
I don't really recommend talking to a bunch of children and deliberately spreading the message "some of you just suck at most things".
There are positive and valuable ways to teach the lesson that people aren't all equally "good at stuff", but it's a tough one to communicate well. It's not a good thing to bring up casually as an example when you're talking about something else.
Even if the intelligences correlate with each other, you'd need to know how strong the corelation is-- individual people could still be strikingly good or bad at some things while being mediocre, somewhat bad, or mildly talented at others.