From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:26:30 GMT
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 <1992Apr8.155110.24488@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>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.

>No, I just don't believe you HAVE that talent. I might if you
>provided some empirical data to support that claim.

I was a successful teacher for years--I recommend you call UCB if you
want the "empirical data".  Perhaps there are people who can deliver
perfect lectures without student feedback--but I'm not one of them.

>>>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.

>You must not get out much.

Not an answer.

>>>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.

>That's not substantiation.

>I pointed out already that TA evaluations are not a good measure
>of teaching ability.

You can point it out all you want.  In general, I'd agree, but I did
not end up as an outlier because I wore glasses or have a beard.

>>>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.

>Improperly controlled hundreds of times? Quite possible.

And highly improbable.  Do you believe that flood geology is a serious
contender for explaining countless uncontrolled coincidences in the
geological record?  I don't.

>>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. 

>So?

So what do *you* suggest is the cause.  I don't believe in miraculous
coincidences.  Do you?

>I know what you believe. I'm asking you to provide some data
>to support it. Without doing so, your conclusion is unjustified
>opinion.

I've offered you data.  You've decided you don't like it.  Your loss.

>>>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.

>Good. Prove it.

You can refuse to look at the data all you like.  You can insinuate that
all sorts of unknown miraculous coincidences occurred.  Whooptie doo.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)