Originally posted by davidtravellingNo.
...to the validity of a person's argument?
The validity of a person's argument rests solely upon the merit of the argument.
How the points of any argument are derived can be varied and do not neccessarily have to be a result of one's formal education or even be impacted at all by one's education.
Some people "just know stuff' and know how to present or reference the stuff they know.
Originally posted by sword4damoclesClearly. I interpret this thread to mean: "Is a person with academic qualifications more or less likley than a randomly chosen person to make valid arguments, all other things being equal?"
No.
The validity of a person's argument rests solely upon the merit of the argument.
How the points of any argument are derived can be varied and do not neccessarily have to be a result of one's formal education or even be impacted at all by one's education.
Some people "just know stuff' and know how to present or reference the stuff they know.
Originally posted by royalchickenThe SIMPLE answer is that initially "all arguments are valid' until proven otherwise...period. Regardless of your rediculous interpretation.
Clearly. I interpret this thread to mean: "Is a person with academic qualifications more or less likley than a randomly chosen person to make valid arguments, all other things being equal?"
You just can't say that the only answer-choices to this question must be ["more likely or less likely" to make valid arguments ]and stipulate "all other things being equal" (as you've presented in your interpretation) because your answer-choices do not fit the CONDITIONS of the situation. See below. Either remove your answer-choices or the "all other things..." part to create a solvable question.
The horribly long and drawn-out over scientificly-based answer is perhaps (attempted) to be explained below. Or not. LOL.
OK, since your interpretation of this thread really rests upon two main CONDITIONS (which you've supplied), we should look at those CONDITIONS in order to derive an answer - right...maybe. After all, the question is vague since it is without any specifics or examples needed to simplify reaching a conclusion.
CONDITION #1 - one person has academic qualifications (unspecified), and the other person does not
CONDITION #2 - "all things being equal"...this is a huge factor. Think about the implication..."all things...", that's everything EXCEPT the educational aspects for each person.
So if two people lived exactly the same lives (all (other) knowledge gained up to this point, experientially, morally, emotionally, etc, etc) but with the one exception of the academic qualification or lack thereof, what impact would that qualification have (more or less as you state) upon making a valid argument? This is insane! LOL! The question as presented (interpreted) by you is NOT SOLVABLE. I could be wrong and probably am but at least I've attempted to tackle it. I need a drink now.
What's needed here is another answer-choice besides the two you have provided. I do not agree with your interpretation as it is flawed and if your interpretation IS correct, with regard to the posing of the question, then the posed question is flawed and a scientific answer cannot be derived.
Your interpretation could be mathematically translated and posed as -
..."if 2 +2 =4 and 1 + 1 = 2, then does 2 + 1 = 2 or 4?" Impossible to derive a correct answer due to the answer-choices. The questions needs to have an open answer choice or a "yes or no" answer-choice to be workable.
The "all things being equal" part is the establishment of 2+2 and 1+1 and the "academic qualification" is expressed as the 'recognition' of what 2+1 is really asking. But the answer-choices just blow this equasion right out of the water.
Why did I waste so much time disecting this silly question?? LOL. Time for Ale...Pale Ale evun!! 🙄 Save me from myself!! More Ale!
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
---ARISTOTLE 😀 'Cmon, lets have a drink together and play some CHESS!!! 😵
1 edit
Originally posted by sword4damoclesThe SIMPLE answer is that initially "all arguments are valid' until proven otherwise...period. Regardless of your rediculous interpretation.
Nowhere do I dispute this. My interpretation rests on the observer being faced with two people, one academically qualified and one not, before they present their arguments. The validity of an argument can, for our purposes, be judged with certainty, and it is true that after the arguments have been made, the observer needn't take into account who made them.
My question asks which arguer the observer rates as more likely to make a valid argument when all xe knows about the arguers is that one is more academically qualified than the other. It doesn't matter whether all other things actually are equal; it only matters that, given the information available, the only rational position for the observer to take is to ignore the aspects of the arguers about which xe is ignorant and consider only their academic qualifications. "All other things being equal" is not a condition; it is analogous to the choice of a prior distribution in a Bayesian hypothesis test. Your statements about two people living the same lives is specious for this reason.
Your mathematical interpretation is a false analogy because the observer can assign any comparative likelihood xe sees fit -- 'more or less likely' asks for an odds ratio, essentially, and this could be 1. Your analogy fails to reflect the uncertainty of the situation.
[If it bothers you that probabilistic predictions can sometimes be counterintuitive by giving an expected result which is impossible (which isn't even the case here), tell me how much money you can expect to make if I promise to give you £500 with probability 1/2 and £100 with probability 1/2.]
I'm not drinking tonight because I've work to do, and I don't really like chess very much.
Originally posted by twiceaknightNot at all. Provided you can back them up. Most people can't. Trust me, what you ARE being taught will have been validated many, many times.
It is easy to get a qualification. You just have to demonstrate that you have understood what the course has been teaching you. A good way to fail a degree, for example, is to have ideas of your own, that are new and/or contoversial. Very few courses can stomach this type of student, and these are often the students who drop out (or fail). A qualificati ...[text shortened]... owever, they may have good knowledge of one subject, which may or may not be out of date by now.
Originally posted by royalchickenSorry about the "rediculous" statement but I was poking some fun here as I did not know what the heck I was doing with the long answer - as I stated earlier.
[b]The SIMPLE answer is that initially "all arguments are valid' until proven otherwise...period. Regardless of your rediculous interpretation.
Nowhere do I dispute this. My interpretation rests on the observer being faced with two people, one academically qualified and one not, before they present their arguments. The validity of an ar ...[text shortened]... t drinking tonight because I've work to do, and I don't really like chess very much.[/b]
So, Mr Hawking you're quite the economist, mathmetician, physics guru and I appreciate that...but it was FUN! OK, too much beer now, moving on...
As for your monetary example - I don't know what I'm doing but heck, here goes. Do I first have to convert the pounds into Euros or Dollars?
Nevermind.
Expected value = event 1 value x event 1 probalility + event 2 value x
event 2 probability...maybe something like 500x0.5 and 100x0.5 = 300
probably 300 pounds? or 300 pounds 25% of the time?, or I don't knw...
You know, actually the original thread posted seemed clear enough and appeared not to be in any need of a Bayesian hypothesis type probabilistic prediction model. 🙄 I guess I did not have the
1.5 gigawats of electricity needed to power my flux-capacitor!
You've got my attention! 😲
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by sword4damoclesI would suggest that all arguments are suspect until proven otherwise. This isn't a courtroom, and arguments are not 'innocent untill proven guilty'. If an argument is based on logical grounds then the logic should be checked and the precepts also checked. If they are ok then the argument could be considered valid (other types of argument should be checked in other ways, factual arguments for example should have the facts scrutanised), assuming it is true without checking given the propensity of humans to make mistakes without considering any other factors shows a deep trust in the person making the statement, which may not be warrented. this brings me back to the origional point as to whether an opinion given by someone with an accademic qualification should have more weight than an oppinion given by someone with no qualification. the question is do you trust that person to be presenting a valid argument/the truth in their feild of expertees. if you had a climate expert for example stating they beleived that man made global warming was occuring and someone with no qualification in the feild stated they beleived it wasn't. then I would ask both to produce evidence to back up their claims but if the only information present is there respective opinions then I would give more creedence to the opinion of the person who has spent a great deal of time studying the subject and has qualifications that prove that they have reached a certain standard in that subject. whether or not on this site you can acertain whether someone actually has the qualification they claim is an entirly different subject.
The SIMPLE answer is that initially "all arguments are valid' until proven otherwise...period. Regardless of your rediculous interpretation.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou have to meet the assessment criteria. That is all. Nothing more , nothing less. OK, your ideas can be accepted if you can back them up, but i think this is unlikely to improve your grades unless it in some way demonstrates that you have understood the content of the syllabus. It is this demonstration of understanding that they need to see, so they can tick the appropriate boxes and give you a pass. They don't like students to "think outside the box" because it doesn't fit into the assessment criteria, a clearly defined perameter within which all students are confined. What credit can they give for something outside the assessment criteria? 0. No other mark can be justified. It is a sad fact about modern education systems.
Not at all. Provided you can back them up. Most people can't. Trust me, what you ARE being taught will have been validated many, many times.
I don't know if this applies to all subjects, but i can't see how work could be fairly graded otherwise.
In any case, the validity of an argument rests in the soundness of the premises and the logical links between those premises, and the person who provides the argument is irrelevant to its validity. I think some people in this thread are confusing "validity" with "credibility."
Originally posted by royalchickenWell, what caused me to write this was the fact that i notice that a lot of threads (as well as degenerating into slanging matches) sometimes end with people swapping qualifications as if that meant anything to the validity of their arguement. I found it quite interesting and was wondering what the general concensus was on this. I have to admit that it was a very vague question - i wrote it in a hurry as i was at work and my boss sits behind me.
Clearly. I interpret this thread to mean: "Is a person with academic qualifications more or less likley than a randomly chosen person to make valid arguments, all other things being equal?"
Originally posted by sword4damoclesI got as far as rediculous(sic) interpretation in your post and then discounted the entire thing as insane uninformed rambling. Perhaps you should spell check next time.
The SIMPLE answer is that initially "all arguments are valid' until proven otherwise...period. Regardless of your rediculous interpretation.
You just can't say that the only answer-choices to this question must be ["more likely or less likely" to make valid arguments ]and stipulate "all other things being equal" (as you've presented in your inte ...[text shortened]... 'Cmon, lets have a drink together and play some CHESS!!! 😵
"education" in the form of university study is an extremely narrow minded process. The dumbest people infact usually come from such institutions. look at all the research that has been discredited over he years from so-called phds and the such. The world would be a much healthier and safer place if we didn't have so many "educated" idiots around.
Originally posted by scorppionI've changed my mind. Education matters.
"education" in the form of university study is an extremely narrow minded process. The dumbest people infact usually come from such institutions. look at all the research that has been discredited over he years from so-called phds and the such. The world would be a much healthier and safer place if we didn't have so many "educated" idiots around.
Thanks for showing me the sort of swill that comes from those that eschew developing the ability to see things from outside one's narrow subject position.
1 edit
Originally posted by davidtravellingYou have to remember that todays education system (world wide) was designed at the outset of the industrial revolution to fill the need of "educating people to stand in a line and do a limited, repetative task for 12 hours".
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
It is meant to teach those workers to show up at a certain time, take your stall, don't speak until spoken to and then take the workers bus back to your residence. Then do it EXACTLY the same way tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow -- forever.
The NEXT education system is being built now, but it is painful. The new way of doing it is with DIRECT INVESTMENT of effort and interest based on the ages old method of tutelage.
But mindless, Pavlovianism isn't to be laughed at. As long as people who can't contribute can get to wear pretty gowns with peacock feathers in front of audiences... don't look for that stupidity to die out any time soon.
edit... "gowns and peacock feathers"? Have you attended a "Graduation Ceremony" at an institution of standardization lately?