The concept of intelligence: a reply to Michael Hand.
Saved in:
| Title: | The concept of intelligence: a reply to Michael Hand. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gingell, John1 John.Gingell@northampton.ac.uk |
| Source: | London Review of Education. Mar2007, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p47-49. 3p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Intellect, *Ability, Hypothesis, Philosophical analysis |
| People: | Hand, Michael R. |
| Abstract: | Michael Hand's interesting analysis of the concept of intelligence crucially depends upon three assumptions: firstly, that there is an ordinary use of the term which, when applied to an individual is perfectly general and not context dependent. Secondly, that this use is best cashed in terms of aptitude. Thirdly, that the aptitude in question is to be explained in terms of theorizing. I shall argue in what follows that the first assumption may be true, but, if it is true, this presents a problem for Hand's analysis and not a path to a solution. That the second assumption is false but, even if it were true, it would sit badly with assumption one. And, finally, that the third assumption runs into too many difficulties to be acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of London Review of Education is the property of UCL Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 24756976 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The concept of intelligence: a reply to Michael Hand. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gingell%2C+John%22">Gingell, John</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> John.Gingell@northampton.ac.uk</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22London+Review+of+Education%22">London Review of Education</searchLink>. Mar2007, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p47-49. 3p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellect%22">Intellect</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ability%22">Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hypothesis%22">Hypothesis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philosophical+analysis%22">Philosophical analysis</searchLink> – Name: SubjectPerson Label: People Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="PE" term="%22Hand%2C+Michael+R%2E%22">Hand, Michael R.</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Michael Hand's interesting analysis of the concept of intelligence crucially depends upon three assumptions: firstly, that there is an ordinary use of the term which, when applied to an individual is perfectly general and not context dependent. Secondly, that this use is best cashed in terms of aptitude. Thirdly, that the aptitude in question is to be explained in terms of theorizing. I shall argue in what follows that the first assumption may be true, but, if it is true, this presents a problem for Hand's analysis and not a path to a solution. That the second assumption is false but, even if it were true, it would sit badly with assumption one. And, finally, that the third assumption runs into too many difficulties to be acceptable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of London Review of Education is the property of UCL Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=24756976 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/14748460701241840 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 3 StartPage: 47 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Intellect Type: general – SubjectFull: Ability Type: general – SubjectFull: Hypothesis Type: general – SubjectFull: Philosophical analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Hand, Michael R. Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The concept of intelligence: a reply to Michael Hand. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gingell, John IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Text: Mar2007 Type: published Y: 2007 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 14748460 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 5 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: London Review of Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
