Do we have a 'much superior intellect' to biblical authors?

This is intended to spin off a discussion started in this thread. In which Brian said When queried on the term 'much superior intellect' he responded:

Well I hope Brian will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he is referring not to raw intelligence, but to what might be called intellectual tools. If so then I think he has an arguable case, although for now I will reserve judgement on just how strong it is (IMHO it needs - at least - some identification for both the cultural context and the actual backgorund of the authors).

Hi Brian, thank's for your response.I hope you don't feel I've misrepresented you either in the above post, or the topic title.While I agree with you that it is certainly the case that our ancestors were in possesion of less facts that we are today I think it's an error to assume that this means they were any less intelligent or capable of abstract thought than we are today. In other words I think you are confusing knowledge and intellect.In terms of your medieval anachronisms, as I understand it that throughout much of history people viewed civilisation as having decline from an ancient 'golden age' is it so odd that they would acredit their ancestors with the best of their day? I believe your examples come down to intellect well-applied within a faulty system of knowledge, rather than faulty intellect. In the same way as people thought the world was flat (it is... locally speaking) or that the earth went round the sun (incorrect, but it certainly appears to, and how much better that than having drawn across the sky in a chariot, or eaten by a wolf each night?).They certainly entertained some odd modes of thought (does she drown? She's not a witch) but it seems to me that these are more abstract in their nature than our modern world. Is it more abstract to attribute turbulence to the motion of water across obstacles, or to malicous water spirits?

Hi, thanks for taking the time to reply. The reason why I claim they were less intellectual is that they didn’t have the same basic methods of critical investigation, they didn’t have the same enquiry skills, or established methodologies that are comparable to modern humans. I would agree that if you could transport an ancient man from 3000 years ago to modern day Scotland then he has the capabilities to be as intelligent as anyone else. I reckon then that my claims are down more to the availability of knowledge than to physiology. Perhaps. It isn’t so odd, but it proves that they didn’t think about history in the same terms as Post-Renaissance historians did for example. These people may have accredited their ancestors with the best of their day, but this just proves that they weren’t employing the same method of enquiry that we do today. As I said, and the ‘Golden Age’ is a good example of this, the cause of an event didn’t have to have any evidence for it, causation was what the storyteller said it was, it wasn’t questioned. Wouldn’t a faulty system of knowledge be the result of a lower intellect? After all, we have a more reliable system of knowledge nowadays, how has this came about, I would argue from the evolution of thought. These are all equally concrete thought though. I would tend to disagree, these appear more concrete to me as they are crystal clear in their meaning, the people of the day wouldn’t have a problem understanding these. Water spirits are far easier for ancients to understand, it wouldn’t be a problem for them.Brian.

I would say that, just as a result of poor nutrition and hygene, they would have sustained enough neurological damage that most of the ancient peoples weren't exactly running on all cylinders, if you catch my drift.

Response to Rei's post from another thread. That's debatable, based upon one's definition of literacy. Even here, where intellectuals gather, there is evidence of marginal abilities in that regard. Sure, most people are able to read at a sixth-grade level but not everyone can do that. Writing skills are more rare, even among college graduates. Yet they produced epic works of literature which have withstood the test of time and their themes are reiterated again and again in modern works. Don't you mean Arithmetic? There were enough people familiar with mathematics in ancient time to deal with the needs for such. Geometry was invented very early in order to deal with land survey and building construction. Sure, not everyone in those days understood geometry. But, on a per capita basis, I expect they had all the geometricians they needed. Most people today cannot even pronounce the word, much less explain the peculiar beauties of Pythagorean Theorem. Compared to the Dark Ages perhaps but the educational standards were extremely high in Sumer, Babylon, and Greece. American standards, on the other hand, have trended downward over the past forty years. How is that so different from today’s "learning"?America's plan for public education is unique, and a welcome concept in the scope of history. But ... Ancient peoples should not to be characterized as more generally ignorant or less capable of intellectual thought. It was these ancient people, after all, who gave us our start on the road to modern science. Not all of them, to be sure, but if you think the majority of Americans today understand the world in the same way you and I do, then I'm afraid you are mistaken. In my experience, at least, finding people such as yourself with whom to chew this fat, is a rare and welcome experience. db

Response to Brian’s post from another thread.Thank you for your response Brian. I suppose you are talking about public sanitation. I doubt that the 'man in the street' worried about public sanitation 3000 years ago. His priest/physician surely must have done so. The 'man on the street' today worries about personal sanitation and those worries come mostly from exposure to the advertising of 'sanitary' products. In this country (U.S.) we are bombarded by trivial and irrelevant appeals to anxiety: - 'Are your teeth white enough?' - 'Does your crotch smell good?' - 'Is your toilet bowl safe for the kids to play in?' - You know the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure your country is not free of what we call the 'Madison Avenue Effect'.Even so, not all cities of the ancient world suffered from poor sanitation. Sumerians enjoyed indoor showers and public sewers while the Hebrew ancestors were digging latrines and bathing out of goat-skin bags. I have witnessed people living in such 'unsanitary' conditions as would horrify, (and did horrify) the public health nurse here. Yet, these people are as happy and healthy, perhaps more so, than those who shower daily and keep an impeccable house.The important thing about sanitation is how it relates to the control of infectious diseases. But then there are infectious diseases which 'don't care' how clean one is.Yes, modern medicine is good. Aseptic procedures have saved many lives. The jury is still out on antibiotics though. In the long run we may look back on them as Not such a great idea after all. Antibiotic resistance acquired by bacteria is only one aspect of the problem. There's nothing like saving the weak to speed degradation of the species. Better storage and preservation methods, along with a large network of farms with improved transportation to markets are at least as important, I think. But even there, we are conducting a hazardous experiment which may not be sustainable. It is based on heavy mechanization and an unending river of crude oil. This is a double edged sword. We have outdone ourselves on this one. At the same time we were developing ways to keep more people alive we were also developing ways to put more people out of work. The industrial revolution has removed the vast majority of people so far from the earth that if the system collapsed very few would know the first thing about growing food for themselves, much less a world full of hungry children. I may be drifting off topic here but I feel this is one of the great weaknesses of our modern way of life. I wonder. How can a person actually read and fail to understand the content of what he reads. Is that true literacy? My literature teacher would think not. But then perhaps he isn't actually reading the viewpoints of his opposition. I suppose I should give him that much credit (not that I really want to give him anything).About the game shows: In this country it is a crime to 'fake it' as you suggest. But seriously Brian, step outside the Ivy Halls for a while. Go into the darkened streets of the real world and try your cheerful intelligent banter on the 'natives'. Maybe your opinion will be unchanged by such an adventure. Personally, I might as well be speaking a foreign language to them. I get little more for the effort than a bit of respect for my apparent level of education. This may seem overly cynical to you but I have come to the conclusion that very, very few people in this country were paying attention in science class.Your point about people's diversity of knowledge is well taken. I am sure that a division of intellectual efforts is as important as a division of any labor. Not unlike the lower classes of ancient scribes. Copyists. I see this as a difference of scale rather than a difference of kind. Same old mentality, same simian dexterity, shiny new tablets and digital pencils.I have a lot of respect for the educational superiority of ancient Babylon. In their universities, a student who achieved academic excellence might receive the distinguished title of: "Sumerian." And if Babylonian 'scientists' had that much respect for Sumerian achievements then perhaps we should consider the reasons for that admiration.It is good to be critical of the failings of our ancestors but let us not forget that we would be nowhere without the genius they brought to the world around them. And let us not forget the dunces which steer the ships of our 'illuminated' states.I believe our current 'superiority' or lack of same cannot be adequately judged at this time. I would not be surprised if future generations characterized us as well meaning but supremely arrogant and lacking in appreciation of what constitutes a sustainable style of living.db

You are comparing the scholars of ancient times with the average person of today; that's more than a little skewed there. The reality is, there were scribes in ancient times for a reason - almost noone was literate. Yes, some people did write, and did write epic poems and works. The fact still remains: Most people at the time couldn't read it if they tried, let alone write. With mathematics as well, the situation is the same. Yes, the scholars of ancient Greece came up with geometry. And yet, there is ample evidence that counting beyond a few hundred was almost unheard of (a few hundreds or thousands in most ancient cultures is often used to symbolize an "infinite" or "limitless" number - and this is show among the scribes!).In short, I have to strongly disagree.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'd like to toss in an anecdote, perhaps someone remembers this. Jay Leno decided to "test" the knowledge of people by asking them three basic questions. (well, basic to some of us.)
1) What is the square root of 81?
2) How many planets in our solar system?
3) What is the German word for "No."?Few people could answer any of those questions. I would think the square root of 81 is fairly basic math, yet few people could anser it. I asked people in the company I was working those same questions. Not ONE out of the 10 people I asked could answer any of them. Did these people lack the ability? Or were they just uneducated and/or ignorant?I don't think it is about ability, but about literacy and education. Isn't it true that abstract concepts such as higher math are cultural manufactions? I mean that these things are passed down culturally and not inherent (not the ability but the concepts). If there isn't a need for something to be learned and nobody willing to learn it, certain knowledge is sure to be lost. Look at the dark ages. Those people were not intrinsically less intelligent than, say than those in the classical age, they just were more concerned with other things such as survival. If math is a cultural manufaction, it makes sense that it would be built upon the foundations of preceding genrations.We have the capability to think logicaly we just don't exercise that part of our ability. I do think that in some ways our brain will adapt to its changing environment, given enough time. Just don't forget that we are still a relatively young species. Those pressures that were affecting our survival during an earlier time in our history have only recently, evolutionarily speaking, lessened or disappeared. Part of the reason for our survival is our ability to be generalists. Our brain allows us to be this way. Its malleability is intrinsic to this ability.I am highly skeptical of the idea that we would be superior in intellect to our ancestors even going back as far as Cro-Magnon man. Spatial ability and logic may have helped them survive but I doubt they would have had much use for Fermat's theorum.

Question #2 is a trick question; that's debated in science. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

hehe, yes it is debatable. Depending on the definition of what constitutes a "true" planet of our solar system, you might or might not include Pluto and any number of planet-like objects I think the humor is that there is a commen thread to the questioning that clues in to their answers and I believe that is why those questions were chosen. (besides the obvious sad commentary on our educational system.)[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 09-23-2003]

The average person today is only marginally literate. Most people at the time couldn't afford to send their kids to school.
Are you aware that there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic? They may have made contributions to it but No, the Greeks did not invent geometry. In fact, the Babylonian's were using what we call Pythagorean Theorem a thousand years before Pythagoras. The Greeks stole a lot of cool things from the Babylonians when Alexander smashed what is now Iraq. Did they give credit to the geniuses of Babylon? If they did, I am not aware of it. Negative evidence? Could you cite some of this 'ample' evidence? The Egyptians gave the age of the universe in years to be millions and millions and hundreds of thousands. I gathered as much.The subject is intellect, not the evolution of public science education. It seems to me that you are overly impressed by the 'average' person of today and unimpressed with the ancients. Am I wrong in that as well?db

According to the National Assessment of Education Progress ("the nation's report card), 36% of high school seniors can read at an advanced level, which is usually complex articles on mathematics and science. Even the 10th percentile of reading ability for 12th graders was 237 (out of 500); the 90th was 332. 74% read at or above a basic level. I can get you the exact descriptions of the different levels if you'd like.*In ancient cultures, the numbers on most of these fronts was incredibly small. Scribe (i.e., person who could read and write, even at a minimal level) was an entire profession.It's not that they were stupid. It's just that reading and writing were mostly irrelevant to the everyday actions in their society unlike ours.

quote:

---

Are you aware that there is a difference between mathematics and arithmetic?

---

Arithmetic is a type of mathematics. Look it up; here's what Merriam-Webster has to say:"A branch of mathematics that deals usually with the nonnegative real numbers including sometimes the transfinite cardinals and with the application of the operations addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division to them."

quote:

---

No, the Greeks did not invent geometry

---

My mistake. I should have worded it "widely publicized and added it to established mathematics". Yes, both the Egyptians and the Babylonians show evidence of Pythagoreaan Theorum as far back as 1900 BC. However, it was anything but widespread.

quote:

---

Negative evidence? Could you cite some of this 'ample' evidence?

---

But of course. The largest Egyptian numeral was a character for 1 million (which was also used to represent infinity; its character was a god with his arms outstretched), but in other cultures, it often was much lower. In Israel, the number 7 used multiple times (such as 77, 7*7, 70*7, etc) was often used to represent infinity. Jesus himself uses this at one point. If I recall correctly, the Babylonians did the same thing with powers of 60 (which was the base of their number system). I could look up a reference for you if you would like.

quote:

---

Am I wrong in that as well?

---

Yes. As I've stated in my other posts as well as this one, the ancients did not focus on education at all in the modern sense. In general, their education was not something that allowed them to learn about science or to solve mechanical/structural problems, although there were a very small minority who did have such training, and whose services were prized. The average ancient citizen's knowledge was focused on more utilitarian tasks. How to make clothes. What plants can be eaten. How to raise and tend sheep. Etc. Things that the average modern person would fail dismally at.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Trick question? Not really. There is a bog standard answer to the question. It is, of course, true that Pluto is sort of "grandfathered" in as a planet to keep the answer the same. The question would be more technically correct if it was worded as "How many bodies of the solar system are arbitrarialy called "planets" in the consensus view?What ia appaling in that it is possible to find 10 people in the same place who can't answer even one of these questions!! The minor details about the problem of drawing the line between "planet" and non-planet are bound of have escaped anyone who can't manage any of these questions. It is very scary!

NosyNed writes:

quote:

---

What ia appaling in that it is possible to find 10 people in the same place who can't answer even one of these questions!!

---

Especially since the (expected) answer to all the questions is the same: Nine (the German word being pronounced essentially like the English word "nine.")After all, the square root of 81 is +/-9.And surely there is a German equivalent of "nope" such that "nein" isn't the expected answer but is correct.I'm reminded of the magic trick regarding getting somebody to think of a country that begins with the letter D, an animal that begins with the letter E, and then the color of that animal and pointing out that he's thinking of a grey elephant in Denmark.Instead, I always had a brown echidna in Djibooti.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!