Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:11:42.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fictionalism, Functionalism and Factor Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

N. J. Block
N. J. Block*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two doubtful philosophical doctrines have contributed strongly to the development of IQ tests, and now play a major role in defending IQ tests as measures of intelligence: they are operationism and fictionalism.

The application of operationism in psychometrics is in such doctrines as the following: one can avoid answering the question whether IQ tests measure intelligence simply by defining the word ‘intelligence’ as what IQ tests measure. Obviously, such a definition does not avoid the issue. For we can now reasonably ask whether people who accept the operational definition use the word ‘intelligence’ to refer to the same quantity as that referred to by people who reject the operational definition or have never considered it. Many operational definitions of ‘intelligence’ would be clearly unsatisfactory. Consider, for example, an operational definition which stipulates that a person's intelligence is the number of pounds indicated when the person is placed on a scale.

Type
Symposium: Genetics, IQ and Education
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1974 , 1974 , pp. 126 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank the following persons for their comments on earlier versions of this material: Richard Boyd, Susan Carey, L. J. Cronbach, Gerald Dworkin, Jerry Fodor, Paul Horwich, John Loehlin, Tom Nagel, Hilary Putnam, and Tim Scanlon. Earlier versions of much of this material were included in my contribution to Block and Dworkin (1974).

References

Anastasi, A.: 1938, ‘Faculties Versus Factors: A Reply to Professor Thurstone’, Psychological Bulletin 35, 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anastasi, A.: 1968, Psychological Testing, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Block, N.: forthcoming, ‘A Test Case for the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’.Google Scholar
Block, N. and Dworkin, G.: 1974a, ‘IQ Heritability and Inequality, Part I’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 3, 331–409.Google Scholar
Block, N. and Dworkin, G.: 1974b, ‘IQ, Heritability and Inequality, Part II’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 4, 40–99.Google Scholar
Block, N. and Fodor, J.: 1972, ‘What Psychological States are Not’, Philosophical Review 81, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J.: 1970a, Essentials of Psychological Testing, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J.: 1970b, ‘Test Validation’ in R. L., Thorndike (ed.), Educational Measurement, Washington D.B., pp. 443–507.Google Scholar
Daniels, N.: 1975, ‘IQ, Heritability, and Human Nature’, this volume, p. 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, H.: 1973, ‘Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference’, Journal of Philosophy 70, 462–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.: 1968, Psychological Explanation, Random House, N.Y.Google Scholar
Guilford, J.: 1967, The Nature of Human Intelligence, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Jensen, A.: 1972, Genetics and Education, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G.: 1962, ‘The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3 (ed. by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Putnam, H.: 1965, ‘Brains and Behavior’, Analytical Philosophy, Vol. II (ed. by Butler, R. J.), Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Putnam, H.: 1967, ‘Psychological Predicates’, in Capitan, W. and Merrill, D. (eds.), Art, Mind and Religion, U. of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J.: 1963, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomson, G. H.: 1939, The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability, University of London Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, L.: 1965, The Psychology of Human Differences, Appleton Century Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
Urbach, P.: 1974, ‘Progress and Degeneration in the “IQ Debate” (1)’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25, 99–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernon, P. E.: 1961, The Structure of Human Abilities, London.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D.: 1958, The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar