• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

"Super Genius" comes up with revolutionary new theory for the universe?

mike3

Master Poster
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
2,466
Hi.

I'm wondering what you would make of this stuff.
I could make a hat.

Supposedly (I looked this up), the guy has a huge IQ of like 195 or 200
Doesn't show, then.

It's not scientific, and it's not a theory. It starts with a complete failure to understand information theory and ends with a complete failure to understand evolutionary theory.

I'd want to hear commentary from people who are real experts in the relevant fields, or at least as close to that as are available here.
It is hard to find a single sentence in the entire paper that doesn't contain a blatant factual error, an obvious logical fallacy, or both.
 
I could make a hat.

LOL! :)


Doesn't show, then.


It's not scientific, and it's not a theory. It starts with a complete failure to understand information theory and ends with a complete failure to understand evolutionary theory.


It is hard to find a single sentence in the entire paper that doesn't contain a blatant factual error, an obvious logical fallacy, or both.

Hmm. And if you don't even understand what you're critiquing, you can't critique it properly (he seems to have some beef with evolution). Yet if their "IQ" is so high, why would they fail to be able to grasp such theory? Does this mean that "IQ" does not measure one's capability to understand scientific theories?
 
Last edited:
Hi.

I'm wondering what you would make of this stuff. Supposedly (I looked this up), the guy has a huge IQ of like 195 or 200:

http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/CTMUnet/CTMU.html
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Is this any good insofar as being a workable scientific theory goes? I'd want to hear commentary from people who are real experts in the relevant fields, or at least as close to that as are available here.


You are kidding, aren't you?

From the first link:

Among the most exciting recent developments in science are Complexity Theory, the theory of self-organizing systems, and the modern incarnation of Intelligent Design Theory, which investigates the deep relationship between self-organization and evolutionary biology in a scientific context not preemptively closed to teleological causation.

This guy is just an ID hack.

Ignore the IQ claim - this guy is ignorant, deluded, and opposed to science and reason.

I've got a Ph.D. in computer science and have done a fair amount of reading about information theory.

These cretins don't understand a thing about information and its role in biological systems. I hate how they deliberately misuse something that I respect (information theory) to lie for their 'god'.

Whenever you see the phrase 'intelligent design' or hear people talking about how 'information can't be created', run away as quickly as you can.

 
A few possibilities:

1. IQ is largely disconnected from scientific knowledge. He could have a 200 IQ and know nothing at all about information theory or evolution.
2. Having a high IQ offers surprisingly little defense against believing in (and doing) really stupid things.
3. He's not actually particularly smart. He is definitely more literate than the average crackpot. He's equally definitely a crackpot.

Could be a combination of factors too.
 
A few possibilities:

1. IQ is largely disconnected from scientific knowledge. He could have a 200 IQ and know nothing at all about information theory or evolution.
2. Having a high IQ offers surprisingly little defense against believing in (and doing) really stupid things.
3. He's not actually particularly smart. He is definitely more literate than the average crackpot. He's equally definitely a crackpot.

Could be a combination of factors too.

Hmm. So what then is needed to be a good scientist instead of a crackpot, and where and why did he fail? 1) obviously implies that an important requirement is a good knowledge of science and scientific theory: why did he not go and acquire this? I found a biography of the guy somewhere, but I don't know where... As for 2), what then is the best defense? I'd suppose it (or part of it) is good knowledge and skill in rational & critical thinking, no? Why then did he not acquire this?
 
Yet if their "IQ" is so high, why would they fail to be able to grasp such theory? Does this mean that "IQ" does not measure one's capability to understand scientific theories?


We don't know that he has a high IQ. We don't even know if he's ever taking an IQ test. These people lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Having a high IQ doesn't mean that he's intelligent, or intelligent in ways that are relevant to the discussion.

There are many otherwise intelligent people who, after being infested with woo memes, behave utterly stupidly in many ways.

He, perhaps, may be able to understand a scientific theory without being willing to understand it.

He sounds quite wilfully ignorant.
 
This guy is just an ID hack.
He's not just an ID hack; he's a crank on a whole range of subjects.

Ignore the IQ claim - this guy is ignorant, deluded, and opposed to science and reason.
The IQ claim predates this ridiculous paper, but it would certainly be appropriate to ignore it and focus on the value of the paper itself.

Which is zero.

These cretins don't understand a thing about information and its role in biological systems. I hate how they deliberately misuse something that I respect (information theory) to lie for their 'god'.
Whenever you see the phrase 'intelligent design' or hear people talking about how 'information can't be created', run away as quickly as you can.
Yep.

If you see information theory and intelligent design together in the same place - and it's not a careful and thoroughgoing explanation of how and why the ID hacks got everything wrong in every imaginable way - you know you're in for a treat. For suitably small values of "treat".
 
Last edited:
We don't know that he has a high IQ. We don't even know if he's ever taking an IQ test. These people lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Having a high IQ doesn't mean that he's intelligent, or intelligent in ways that are relevant to the discussion.

There are many otherwise intelligent people who, after being infested with woo memes, behave utterly stupidly in many ways.

He, perhaps, may be able to understand a scientific theory without being willing to understand it.

He sounds quite wilfully ignorant.

Hmm. I remembered something from a biography of this guy I read online (which I'd like to find but can't seem to), that he (paraphrasing at least) "thought he had more to teach his professors than they had to teach him" or something like that. This suggests a sort of egotism or perhaps just overconfidence, and also perhaps that he did not understand that the purpose of going to the professors is to learn, among other things, what others have done on these topics. Or perhaps he did understand, but due to the egotism/overconfidence, simply felt it not worth bothering with. Is this a reasonable assessment? Also, is this a sad story of wasted talent? Could this guy have been a great scientist if he did not have whatever it was that led him to kookpottery, provided the "intelligence" claims are correct?

And would you mind telling me some details of a few places where he goes wrong and why (not a whole lot, just a few, to minimize the required time), as I don't have enough expertise in the necessary fields (you mention you have some in information theory -- so perhaps you could focus on that part) to criticize it myself?
 
Last edited:
Hmm. So what then is needed to be a good scientist instead of a crackpot... ?


Integrity, honesty, skepticism; a willingness to question everything, especially yourself, especially your assumptions and the quality and clarity of your thinking; passion for the truth above all else; avoidance of religious and other woo beliefs (for woo undermines integrity, reason, and science); a regular honest examination of your life and your mind; shedding all superstitions; a yearning to understand reality as it is, not as you want it to be; utter dedication; an appreciation for and desire for elegance and beauty; and a willingness desire to think about a problem for the rest of your life.

There is much more, but those are what come to mind.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. So what then is needed to be a good scientist instead of a crackpot, and where and why did he fail?
Scientists construct and test hypotheses.

A scientific hypothesis is a specific, predictive, and falsifiable model of some aspect of reality. It says that if I do A, B will happen.

With a hypothesis in hand, we can run an experiment where we do A in controlled conditions, and see if B happens. If B happens, the hypothesis is supported. If B doesn't happen, the hypothesis is falsified.

1) obviously implies that an important requirement is a good knowledge of science and scientific theory: why did he not go and acquire this?
Don't know.

I found a biography of the guy somewhere, but I don't know where... As for 2), what then is the best defense? I'd suppose it (or part of it) is good knowledge and skill in rational & critical thinking, no? Why then did he not acquire this?
The best defense is a willingness to admit that you're wrong. If you don't have that, all the IQ in the world won't help you.

Langan is mentioned in the book Outliers. From Wikipedia:
Gladwell continuously reminds the reader that genius is not the only or even the most important thing when determining a person's success. Using an anecdote to illustrate his claim, he discusses the story of Christopher Langan, a man who ended up working on a horse farm in rural Missouri despite having an IQ of 195 (Einstein's was 150). Gladwell points out that Langan has not reached a high level of success because of the environment he grew up in. With no one in Langan's life and nothing in his background to help him take advantage of his exceptional gifts, he had to find success by himself. "No one—not rock stars, not professional athletes, not software billionaires, and not even geniuses—ever makes it alone," writes Gladwell.
 
The best defense is a willingness to admit that you're wrong. If you don't have that, all the IQ in the world won't help you.

And that seems to be his problem. I saw a discussion online with him, where he kept dismissing a critic with "you're not smart enough to understand my theory", or something like that.

The quote from the book, Outliers, that you posted seems to confirm my suspicions about this being a "sad" story. If he had the right environment with the right people, do you think maybe he could have been a great scientist providing significant, perhaps truly revolutionary, insight into real scientific mysteries? And also, it would seem to suggest we need a system of society that provides such things where they're needed, though I suppose that'd be a topic for the other forums...
 
Last edited:
Integrity, honesty, skepticism; a willingness to question everything, especially yourself, especially your assumptions and the quality and clarity of your thinking; passion for the truth above all else; avoidance of religious and other woo beliefs (for woo undermines integrity, reason, and science); a regular honest examination of your life and your mind; shedding all superstitions; a yearning to understand reality as it is, not as you want it to be; utter dedication; an appreciation for and desire for elegance and beauty; and a willingness desire to think about a problem for the rest of your life.

There is much more, but those are what come to mind.

Does this mean that maybe it is good to try and question, say, evolution (you said question "everything"), but if the evidence stands firm, then you've got to accept it as true?
 
I'm not sure how important high intelligence is in truly creative and innovative scientific discovery.

Intelligence is one factor, to be sure, but so is hunger, passion, creativity, dedication, and perseverance.
 
I'm not sure how important high intelligence is in truly creative and innovative scientific discovery.

Intelligence is one factor, to be sure, but so is hunger, passion, creativity, dedication, and perseverance.

So then you don't necessarily need a huge IQ of over 150 or something to make significant scientific discoveries, then?
 
I had a quick look through the paper, it's meaningless twaddle.

His claim of an IQ of 200 or whatever reminds me of a put-down by someone I knew many years ago: "I know xxxx is intelligent, he told me so himself!"
 
Last edited:
Consider Marilyn vos Savant, recorded as having the highest measured IQ in the world. And what does she do for a living? She writes a effing newspaper column that the JREF Puzzle forum puts to shame.
 
LOL! :)

Hmm. And if you don't even understand what you're critiquing, you can't critique it properly (he seems to have some beef with evolution). Yet if their "IQ" is so high, why would they fail to be able to grasp such theory? Does this mean that "IQ" does not measure one's capability to understand scientific theories?

Anyone with an average IQ wouldn't reference Dembski unless he had an agenda.
ID is a religion, Mike, it has nothing to do with science. It means that ID cancels out IQ.

From the paper footnotes:
William A. Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1997, pp. 180–190.
 
Does this mean that maybe it is good to try and question, say, evolution (you said question "everything"), but if the evidence stands firm, then you've got to accept it as true?


Question everything, including reason, science, and evolution.

I don't think you should accept anything as 'true'. I would say, instead, that you might incorporate it into your world view, accept it as part of your working model, treat it as something as well-supported by the evidence, treasure it as a wonderful unifying theory.

At the same time, always be ready to reexamine evolution and other things that you think are good approximations of the truth, for only by doing this are we able to improve our understanding of reality.

I don't know anything for certain, but I think we've come a fair way in improving our understanding of reality, all by respecting and using science and reason.
 
And there's still some ways between 150 IQ and "dumb", though :)


I think there are many kinds of intelligence that might be relevant to signficant scientific discovery, and I question the extent to which they are related to IQ.

Furthermore, I think there are attitudes, patterns of thought, styles of thought, and so on that can greatly affect the likelihood for such discovery.

IQ is only one factor, and I think it is easy to overestimate the importance of high IQ when considering this issue.
 
Would one get laughed at if one questioned evolution in front of a professor or something?


It all depends upon what you mean by 'questioned'.

If you say, "I don't think evolution is true. Defend it.", I think you should be told to go read a book, think about it, and come back with some real questions.

If you say, "I don't understand why every organism in group A is regarded as belonging to the same species, while each organism in group B belongs to either species I or species II but not both. Can you explain it to me?", I think you would get a good response.

If you say, "If organisms in the same sexual species can mate with each other, and organisms in different species can't mate with each other, why do we describe a human couple as being of the same species if they are infertile with each other?", I think you would get a good response.

The reception you'd get depends, in part, on your attitude, your perceived intent in asking the question, the preparation (or lack thereof) that your questions indicates, the depth of the response necessary and whether the situation can accommodate such a response, your apparent interest in the answer, the novelty of the question, the relevance of the question to the discussion, and your ability and openness to listen.
 
When I read the thread title, all I could think of was an old WB cartoon.

"I am Wile E. Coyote...suppperrrrrr genius!"
 
Last edited:
It all depends upon what you mean by 'questioned'.

If you say, "I don't think evolution is true. Defend it.", I think you should be told to go read a book, think about it, and come back with some real questions.

If you say, "I don't understand why every organism in group A is regarded as belonging to the same species, while each organism in group B belongs to either species I or species II but not both. Can you explain it to me?", I think you would get a good response.

If you say, "If organisms in the same sexual species can mate with each other, and organisms in different species can't mate with each other, why do we describe a human couple as being of the same species if they are infertile with each other?", I think you would get a good response.

The reception you'd get depends, in part, on your attitude, your perceived intent in asking the question, the preparation (or lack thereof) that your questions indicates, the depth of the response necessary and whether the situation can accommodate such a response, your apparent interest in the answer, the novelty of the question, the relevance of the question to the discussion, and your ability and openness to listen.

The type of question I was thinking about was something like: "To me, this evidence here doesn't seem to support <some component of evolutionary theory>, because <insert reason here>. Could <component> be wrong?"

And what kind of attitudes would result in them laughing?
 
The type of question I was thinking about was something like: "To me, this evidence here doesn't seem to support <some component of evolutionary theory>, because <insert reason here>. Could <component> be wrong?"
If you are representing the evidence reasonably accurately - or are making an understandable mistake - then you'll get a serious answer.

And what kind of attitudes would result in them laughing?
Hmm.

There are a lot of standard creationist tropes, but everyone in the field has seen them a million times, so they'd get a pained sigh and another patient explanation with little hope of achieving anything.

To get laughter, you'd have to come up with something novel.
 
Would one get laughed at if one questioned evolution in front of a professor or something?

If you poke around this forum's archives, you'll find a lot of people who sign up and whose first post is "There's something that I can't figure out about evolution; it seems wrong to me for the following reasons ..." For the most part, these people get a welcome and a bunch of very friendly links and explanations. At least for a few pages.

If you questioned evolution in a scientific way---if you starting by knowing, or being interested in learning, the relevant evidence---sure, most reasonable people are happy to hear you out. But that's not where most creationists start. They usually start with "I want to conclude that evolution is wrong. I found some tiny fragment of evidence! Now I'll leap to the conclusion and call it science! You're a moron if you disagree!" Yeah, that gets you laughed at.
 
We don't know that he has a high IQ. We don't even know if he's ever taking an IQ test. These people lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.

Actually, they don't lie, they're delusional. They're heard that high IQ = being a genius, because that's the public's perception of IQ. Since such folks just "know" they are geniuses, they assign themselves the "appropriate" IQ they "surely" have.
 
And what kind of attitudes would result in them laughing?

"A belly laugh is better than a thousand syllogisms".

These folks are not amendable to reason. Anybody who doesn't accept their self-valuation as the new Einstein is an ENEMY who is AGAINST PROGRESS because he is a SLAVE OF THE CORRUPT SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT.

Since you become their "enemy" just as much as for trying politely to explain to them where they went wrong and for laughing in their face, it is shorter, more theraputic, and just as convincing to laugh at them.
 
I'd like to point out that the idea that "you cannot understand the world unless you accept it is both mental and physical" and the belief that the design we see in nature implies a designer are not only not "new and revolutionary", they are probably the default view of the human race since prehistorical times.
 
Principal: "Here is your son's IQ test results."
Homer Simpson (impressed): "912!!"
Principal: "Er, you're holding that upside down. It's actually 216."
Homer Simpson (disappointed): "Oh."
 
A hard read, and I soon came to the conclusion that this is someone who thinks why use one word, when two might give it greater efficacy. Like others,as soon as I saw "ID" mentioned I lost interest.
 
Back
Top Bottom