Any person, no matter the IQ, can do one thing reasonably well, and that is to raise children to maturity.
This statement is obviously false and obviously falsifiable.
Insert example of vegetative-state life-support cripple “raising a child” (AKA not actually doing anything and having an effective/apparent IQ of ~0, perhaps even dying as soon as the child touches something they weren’t supposed to).
At this point, a rock would be just as good at raising a child. At least the child can use the rock to kill a small animal and eat it.
Is your question/objection rhetorical, or did you just not understand the A Human’s Guide to Words sequence?
Taboo “person”, and if that doesn’t work, taboo “raise children”, and if that still doesn’t work, taboo “no matter the IQ” or “can do” or “reasonably well” or even the entire list of symbols that is generating the confusion.
I objected and gave a thought experiment to illustrate the falsifiability of one specific assertion, which can be nothing else than what I believed you meant by that list of symbols, based on my prior beliefs on what the symbols represented in empirical conceptspace.
If you question my objection on the grounds of using a symbol incorrectly, then you should question the symbol usage, not the objection as a whole through a straw-manned assertion built with your different version of the symbol.
This statement is obviously false and obviously falsifiable.
Insert example of vegetative-state life-support cripple “raising a child” (AKA not actually doing anything and having an effective/apparent IQ of ~0, perhaps even dying as soon as the child touches something they weren’t supposed to).
At this point, a rock would be just as good at raising a child. At least the child can use the rock to kill a small animal and eat it.
Is a “vegetative-state life-support cripple” a person at all?
Is your question/objection rhetorical, or did you just not understand the A Human’s Guide to Words sequence?
Taboo “person”, and if that doesn’t work, taboo “raise children”, and if that still doesn’t work, taboo “no matter the IQ” or “can do” or “reasonably well” or even the entire list of symbols that is generating the confusion.
I objected and gave a thought experiment to illustrate the falsifiability of one specific assertion, which can be nothing else than what I believed you meant by that list of symbols, based on my prior beliefs on what the symbols represented in empirical conceptspace.
If you question my objection on the grounds of using a symbol incorrectly, then you should question the symbol usage, not the objection as a whole through a straw-manned assertion built with your different version of the symbol.