Of how Palin is less intelligent than, say, Joe Biden. I'm not interested in their CVs or a single odd remark -- give me something legitimate. This is a serious question.

Denial of Evolution. More specifically confusing the notion of Intelligent Design - which is a hypothesis, with Evolutionary THEORY which is a scientific theory. In case you too are unaware of the difference, a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has actually been proven to support all the known observations and to pass the test of Occam's razor.

A hypothesis is an unproven idea that may or may not SOMEDAY become a scientific theory.

Palin equates the two as equal. Biden does not.

That's just one.

dregs, do you know the difference between theory and fact? as in scientific THEORY and scientific FACT?

While the topic of the Earth's climate is more complex than most discussions would imply - and far, far more complex than the simpleminded human factor deniers insist - the idea that action can be taken by blowing off the causes as irrelevant is, in a word, stupid.

Not ignorant.

Stupid.

Ignorance is condition all people must deal with in themselves to one degree or another on every topic but to embrace ignorance or - just as bad - to pretend ignorance while denying reality - is just plain stupid.

I don't know if dregs does, but I do. I also know that there is a very significant difference between the layman's usage of the term 'theory' and the scientists and you appear to be playing on the difference, either through ignorance or cynicism.

Yup I sure do know the difference between FACT, THEORY and HYPOTHESIS.

A "FACT" is an observed, independently repeatable, inductively provable observation or formulae, which if discreditted requires a complete revamping of all related known knowlege - the existance of atoms is a "fact"

a "THEORY" is an observed, independently repeatable, inductively provable observation or formulae which encompasses all known relevant observations but which could be discreditted without a revamping of all related known knowledge, instead only requiring a new theory. - quantum mechanics is a theory, evolution is a theory

a "HYPTOTHESIS" is an unproven idea that matches some observations and can be discreditted with no impact on either existing knowledge or theory. There is life on Alpha Centauri is a hypothesis. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis.

The difference between 'FACT' and 'THEORY' is very slim. The difference between THEORY and HYPOTHESIS is a vast gulf.

quidfecisti:

Of how Palin is less intelligent than, say, Joe Biden. I'm not interested in their CVs or a single odd remark -- give me something legitimate. This is a serious question.

I don't mean to be flippant about a serious question and I really do like your post more than most on this board, but it seems like you're asking us to give you one example demonstrating Palin's lack of intelligence while precluding us from using almost everything relevant.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good example because it is barely a Theory and it still has a lot of unknowns.

Besides evolution, we could go to the realm of international politics:

Palin believes that how we deal with Russia (on issues like Georgia) is not connected with how we go about keeping Iran from getting The Bomb

Biden knows that we need Russian cooperation in enforcing any negotiations and sanctions against Iran, and thus we need to balance our interests in Georgia with our interests in Iran.

We could go to economics

Palin believes that trickle-down economics works, despite all the research to the contrary.

Biden recognizes that trickle-down has not proven track record of working and that the national economy is more complex than Wassillas.

We could go to public policy

Palin believes that Abstinence Only education works despite clear and proven evidence to the contrary.

Biden believes that comprehensive reproductive education is the most effective approach (something which is backed by studies)

We could go on and on with this list. The reality is that Palin simply isn't very knowledgable

Neuro, Science is science. Palin is weakest in this area, be it evolution, sex ed or any other area where there is actual scientific research that contradicts her beliefs.

degsme,

I agree wholeheartedly that Palin is ignorant with respect to, well, a lot. A whole lot. However, I don't believe the presence of ignorance necessitates the absence of intelligence. Though it's difficult, I think you can be intelligent but still ignorant and dumb as a brick but not ignorant.

I believe Palin is both ignorant, as you have pointed out several times, and un-intelligent. But without pointing to her college record, without pointing to her meandering interview with Couric or her debate with Biden, etc, well, without having any of that info to use I'm not really sure how you can prove she's unintelligent. But ignorant and misinformed? Definitely.

Palin believes that Abstinence Only education works despite clear and proven evidence to the contrary.

The best example of this being Palin's own daughter, who, it would be assumed, received this education. Didn't work, did it, Sarah?

Neuro:

I believe Palin is both ignorant, as you have pointed out several times, and un-intelligent. But without pointing to her college record, without pointing to her meandering interview with Couric or her debate with Biden, etc, well, without having any of that info to use I'm not really sure how you can prove she's unintelligent. But ignorant and misinformed? Definitely.

I don't believe there is any undisputed definition of intelligence, such as you seem to suggest we use here. What would you use to define or prove intelligence in anyone, or the lack thereof?

And considering what all is at stake here, a potential leader being unintelligent vs. her being willfully uninformed, why must this distinction even be made?

Most brain and cognitive scientists consider "intelligence" to be the raw processing horsepower of a particular brain. Many laypeople see this as "smart" - the person who can solve the more complex puzzle in less time.

But we also know that there are 'multiple intelligences' - namely that depending on the domain, some brains are more effective at processing than others.

I don't think Palin or Bush are particularly "unintelligent" though I don't see them as dramatically more intelligent than average. They are slightly above average, but not dramatically so. BUT where they BOTH fall down is that they both are profoundly incurious about the world about them In this way they are very much part of the core GOP composition. As was recently pointed out to me, the one common theme between GOP business, religious, and military conservatives is that they have a strong belief in there being a single "natural order" to things.

Such a strong belief in the "natural order" allows you to have a much simpler approach to evaluating issues - either the conform with the "natural order" or they are bad or wrong. And if circumstances (like the current market crash) threaten to undermine the 'facts' underpinning the 'natural order' then you look to something that was "out of order" leading up to the challenging circumstances (Community Reinvestment lending as the scapegoat for the current crash for exampl).

Thus you end up with a profoundly incurious and non-introspective approach to the world.

sad really

I wasn't pointing to her belief that human activity could not possibly be a contributing factor but rather to her declaration that causes were not relevant to the discussion of how climate change might be addressed. Disagreement about conclusions people hold on a topic wouldn't automatically indicate a lack of intelligence, but declaring consideration of potential causes to be irrelevant to problem solving IS a reflection of a basic lack of understanding of problem solving.

Ah got it. That wasn't clear to me from your top post - sorry