From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:50:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.73209
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)

In article <1992Apr7.212243.14200@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>>Total nonsense.  When I didn't cut corners, I could see students
>>>>freeze or get bored or otherwise panic.  

>>>Opinion.

>>Not opinion.  These are all easily recognizable physical reactions.

>Glad to know you're omniscient. Now give me some data.

What omniscience?  I can recognize when a student freezes rather easily.
This requires no special talent, just care and alertness.

If this talent seems omniscient to you, I'd say the problem is with you.

>>>>And I mentioned empirical data: my students' grades and their evaluations.

>>>Who graded them?

>>The professor and TAs together.

>Boffo. Now produce something standardized that we can agree on
>as a good measure of calculus learning.

I couldn't care less if you agree with my measures.  You're the first
person I've come across who thinks teacher evaluation of students needs
controls or standardized tests or the like.  I've written letters of
recommendation and have yet to see my evaluations questioned as needing
other support beyond my word.

Where's your evidence for this new standard?

>>>Evaluations are not, IMHO, a wonderful way to measure understanding.

>>No.  But my assertion that I was a good teacher is more than my opinion.

>Good. Substantiate that.

No, you substantiate it.  You call UCB and ask for comparative ratings
of TAs in the early 80s, when I taught calculus.  I even got some TA
teaching award, I think it was '81 or '82.

>>>No, what I am challenging is PRECISELY the claim that it is
>>>cause and effect. Does the phrase post hoc fallacy ring a bell?

>>Yes.  How does it apply in this case?  The fallacy is when a causative
>>mechanism is deduced from just coincidences.  I could see explanations
>>make sense or fail to make sense.

>You have alleged that this is causative mechanism. I am pointing out
>that it could be coincidental--or at least improperly controlled.

Once, it could be coincidental.  Hundreds of times, no.

>You're insistence that that WAS the mechanism does nothing to
>actually demonstrate causation, and until you do so, all you'll
>be doing is asserting.

Asserting the only plausible conclusion.  If you want to believe in
some mental calculus creationism going on in my students' minds, go
ahead, but no is going to take you seriously.

>		        The first step to demonstrating that
>your teaching style was causal is to demonstrate that such an
>effect even existed, a phenomenon I'm not about to take your word
>for.

You don't believe in learning?  

>     After that, demonstration that you have controlled for other
>factors would be a step in the right direction.

Nope, I did not control for mischievous eye twinkles or guilty foot
tapping.  But I don't believe they were the cause, and I wouldn't
bother controlling for them either. 

>The empirical truth value of your assertion is non-related to
>the vehemence with which you claim it to be true.

That's correct.  It just happens to be true, though.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)