Definition of intelligence  

A major criticism of the theory is that it is _ad hoc_ : that Gardner is not
expanding the definition of the word "intelligence", but rather denies the
existence of  intelligence  as
traditionally understood, and instead uses the word "intelligence" where other
people have traditionally used words like "ability" and "  aptitude
 ". This practice has been criticized by  Robert
J. Sternberg  ,  [26]  [27]
 Michael Eysenck  ,  [28]  and 
Sandra Scarr  .  [29]  White (2006) points
out that Gardner's selection and application of criteria for his
"intelligences" is subjective and arbitrary, and that a different researcher
would likely have come up with different criteria.  [30]

Defenders of MI theory argue that the traditional definition of intelligence
is too narrow, and thus a broader definition more accurately reflects the
differing ways in which humans think and learn.  [31]

Some criticisms arise from the fact that Gardner has not provided a test of
his multiple intelligences. He originally defined it as the ability to solve
problems that have value in at least one culture, or as something that a
student is interested in. He then added a  disclaimer  that he has no fixed definition, and his classification is more
of an artistic judgment than fact:

> Ultimately, it would certainly be desirable to have an  algorithm
>  for the selection of intelligence, such that
> any  trained researcher  could determine
> whether a candidate's intelligence met the appropriate criteria. At present,
> however, it must be admitted that the selection (or rejection) of a
> candidate's intelligence is reminiscent more of an  artistic judgment
>  than of a scientific assessment.  [32]

Generally, linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities are called
intelligence, but artistic, musical, athletic, etc. abilities are not. Gardner
argues this causes the former to be needlessly aggrandized. Certain critics
are wary of this widening of the definition, saying that it ignores "the
connotation of intelligence ... [which] has always connoted the kind of
thinking skills that makes one successful in school."  [33]

Gardner writes "I balk at the unwarranted assumption that certain human
abilities can be arbitrarily singled out as intelligence while others cannot."
[34]  Critics hold that given this statement, any interest or ability can be
redefined as "intelligence". Thus, studying intelligence becomes difficult,
because it diffuses into the broader concept of ability or talent. Gardner's
addition of the naturalistic intelligence and conceptions of the existential
and moral intelligence are seen as the fruits of this diffusion. Defenders of
the MI theory would argue that this is simply a recognition of the broad scope
of inherent mental abilities and that such an exhaustive scope by nature
defies a one-dimensional classification such as an  IQ value
 .

The theory and definitions have been critiqued by Perry D. Klein as being so
unclear as to be  tautologous  "Tautology
\(logic\)") and thus  unfalsifiable 
. Having a high musical ability means being good at music while at the same
time being good at music is explained by having high musical ability.  [35]

 Henri Wallon  "Henri Wallon
\(psychologist\)") argues that "We can not distinguish intelligence from its
operations".  [36]  Yves Richez distinguishes 10 Natural Operating Modes (
_Modes Opératoires Naturels – MoON_ ).  [37]  Richez's studies are premised on
a gap between Chinese thought and Western thought. In China, the notion of
"being" (self) and the notion of "intelligence" do not exist.  [ _
clarification needed   _ ]  These are claimed to be Graeco-Roman inventions derived from
Plato. Instead of intelligence, Chinese refers to "operating modes", which is
why Yves Richez does not speak of "intelligence" but of "natural operating
modes" ( _MoON_ ).