[ExI] IQ and beauty

[rex]

John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> [2015-10-20 10:50]:
>    On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:35 PM, rex <[1]rex at nosyntax.net> wrote:
> 
>      ​> ​Worse, it's not testable and thus outside the realm of science. Put
>      it in the  bin of sterile idle philosophical speculation.
> 
>    ​I guess you'd have to put Darwin's theory in that same ​bin of  idle
>    philosophical speculation.

No at all. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are testable. OTOH,
ideas/theories that cannot, in principle, be falsified have no place
in science. 

>      ​> ​There IS solid evidence that suggests the horns played no
>      significant
>      ​ ​role, e.g., a plot of body weight vs horn size for various deer shows
>      ​ ​the IE right on the best least-squares fit. The 'huge' horns turn out
>      ​ ​to be an artifact of the way the human mind sees the world.
> 
>    ​There IS solid evidence that suggests
>    ​ that Irish Elk had ​no significant
>    ​ horns, or insignificant horns, or horns of any sort
>    whatsoever. Irish Elk
>    ​ had antlers.

Yes, I know. Likewise I know that the Irish Elk isn't an elk at all,
it's a deer. In this context, who cares? Likewise for the meaningless
distinction between "horn" and "antler" here.

Like most, I use the terms "horn" and "antler" interchangeably unless
there is a relevant difference in the context of the discussion. Do
you think anyone here will be distracted from the main thesis if
"horn" is used instead of "antler"?

-rex
--