Weight isn't some property we just defined based on the compression of a spring, and we aren't measuring just a correlation. When we measure weight on an analog scale we already know several, quantitative physical properties of the spring, we also have a mathematical model of how exactly the compression of a spring is directly related (not correlated) to the force of weight. Given that we know all of the additional variables of a spring we take it's compression and determine the weight. Inaccuracies in analog scales are not due to some stochastic process involved with the correlation between weight and compression, but inaccuracies measuring the quantitative properties of the spring.

In an IQ test we are merely counting a set of qualitative properties (answered question n correctly). There is no underlying model that we are using to determine "intelligence", there is nothing quantitative about the IQ test other than counting the correct answers. We don't even have a quantitative model of intelligence at all, so there is simply no way to measure it. It is not pedantry to say that what an IQ test does is merely measure answered questions and not intelligence. If there where a.) a quantitative model of intelligence, and b.) a formula mapping this to IQ tests then, yes we could say we were measuring intelligence in the same way an analog scale measures weight.

> what an IQ test does is merely measure answered questions and not intelligence.

I get your point, but I think it is still not quite a cut and dry as you are making it. The issue is not that intelligence is something quantifiable for which they haven't been able to map IQ on to; intelligence is just an ill-defined concept. Absolutely nothing can possibly measure or map onto intelligence because there just is no real definition of the word.

Saying that IQ measures intelligence is the same as saying that answering questions on a standardized test requires intelligence, which seems like a perfectly reasonable and valid definition to me.

Would you bring up this argument someone said "He solved that math problem that has been open for hundreds of years, he is intelligent". Would you jump in and say "actually, solving math problems isn't necessarily a measure of intelligence, which is what you are implying".

All that solving famous unsolved math proofs shows is that you are better at solving math proofs that a bunch of other people who try to solve math proofs, what does that have to do with intelligence!

And I think I'm starting to get your point as well ;) Perhaps I would have been more explicit. The key point here is the difference between qualitative and quantitative data. "intelligence" as we know it is a qualitative property. So it is perfectly okay to say "He solved that math problem... he is smart", I'm honestly not being a pedant here. There is a language and method for discussing qualitative properties of things: most of philosophy deals with these issues, the arts deals with these, and the majority of everyday language also deals with the qualitative. So depending on the degree of formalism, expressiveness and seriousness you want to discuss something qualitative we have a framework for that.

What you cannot do, despite any amount of manipulation and/or trickery, is talk about qualitative data as though it were quantitative. One very important aspect of quantitative data is that there is an ordered relation on a given set of quantitative data, so you can make absolute and accurate claims about how that data is ordered. One person's height can be quantitatively shown to be higher than anothers, their weight larger, there top speed faster. And all of these properties can be shown to be undisputedly so, that's the nature of quantitative data.

And here's they key point: you can absolutely show that someone's IQ score is higher than anothers, but you cannot absolutely show that someone is more intelligent than another. There is not an ordered relation on the set of human intelligence.

Now I know what you might say "But surely someone with an IQ of 70 and and IQ of 170 can be shown to be different levels of intelligence". But these are extremes and I would argue you're still ultimately making an assessment based on obvious, qualitative properties of intelligence.

Take for example the property of "friendliness", which is qualitative. Now you and I can could probably come up with some ordering among people in a room as to who was the least and most friendly. But if we moved to different cities or countries that ordering might change. I would bet our extreme case would still hold, that is the person we decided was the least friendly, would probably (but not absolutely) be seen as unfriendly in many environments. We can compare to a degree qualitative data, but it is always fuzzy, and never absolute.

This is so important, and more than just pedantry, because it is a logical error to try to compare qualitative things with quantitative means. It leads to a variety of poor/wrong conclusions about data and situations. This is why it is essential to realize that the number of correct answers on an IQ test can be correlated to a variety of other quantitative data. We may associate much of this quantitative data with qualities of intelligence, but this is by no means the same as making the claim that we are measuring something which is, by our current definition, immeasurable.