<p>You’re clearly not interested in having a conversation.</p>
<p>You’re not going to convince anyone by repeatedly insulting my intelligence over irrelevant points.</p>
<p>
My writing is as precise as the situation requires. We’re having an informal discussion on an online forum. This isn’t a debate and you’re not trying to write a logical proof.</p>
<p>
That’s a pretty vague statement and has all sorts of problems with it. Namely, you don’t even provide the problems with it.</p>
<p>
Actually, it is. In general, higher salaries will attract higher quality personnel.</p>
<p>How’s this: your wrong. No, I don’t need reasons; I just say “you’re wrong.”</p>
<p>For one who criticizes me for being imprecise, that’s awfully hypocritical.</p>
<p>
Again, this isn’t a logical proof. We’re having an informal discussion. Of course there are going to be exceptions. I didn’t make a forall claim. I made an in general claim.</p>
<p>Your writing is sloppy for an informal discussion.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Writing should be internally consistent.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’ve pointed out similar problems in the past which you waved away.
Why should I exert effort to explain when you ignore the explanations?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There is a chronic shortage of science and math teachers in public
schools, particularly in large, inner city schools. Pay can be quite
high for these positions. We still have shortages despite higher
salaries.</p>
<p>Safety and quality of life are issues for school teachers just as they
are for everyone else. We have an apartment in a low-income city where
there are serious gang problems. High schools students learn how to
commit crime where they come together - in school. The state money for
anti-gang police has been chopped so I expect more gang problems in
this district in the future. This is a district where there are
shootings into dwellings, frequent bank and other robberies, lots of
domestic violence and some strange peccadillos of school personnel.</p>
<p>Cost of living, pensions, health-care benefits and community support
for schools are also major factors in where teachers choose to work.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>My explanation was below. I’m plugged into the homeschooling community
and have been since it was much smaller. Our son took the aforementioned
AP Biology course and I have some insight into the other students that
took the course back then.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Here’s your claim.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Actually 70% of homeschoolers cited religious reasons for
homeschooling. 30% cite religion as their primary reason for
homeschooling. This means that you have Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
etc. homeschoolers with a wide variety of beliefs. The only major area
where there is an issue is biology. I run into religious homeschoolers
that are premed students. That do well in physics, chemistry,
engineering. And yes, biology. Your doubts are indefensible. But if
you care to try to defend them, I will be more than willing to look at
your research.</p>
<p>I’m done with being insulted by a narrow-minded engineer.</p>
<p>
When it’s the primary reason is more of a cause of concern. Homeschoolers are twice as likely to be Evangelicals than the average.</p>
<p>
That is not a forall statement. In fact, my phrasing quite clearly leaves room for exceptions.</p>
<p>
Again with the unsubstantiated and anecdotal evidence. Remember what you said about how writing should be internally consistent? You can’t criticize my writing for being vague and then provide equally vague and useless arguments yourself.</p>
<p>I’d be more than willing to look at your research.</p>
<p>An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
“argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,
rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You have some evidence that evangelicals don’t do well in science?
Peer-reviewed literature is preferred.</p>
<p>Several years ago, I read (in Education Week) that Texas had a goal
that 50% of their graduates would understand algebra. I don’t know
whether or not they achieved their goal but I thought it remarkable
that they couldn’t teach more than half of their students algebra
in 12 years. Algebra is an elementary school or middle school topic
at the latest. Biology is usually a high-school topic. Which do you
think is the bigger problem?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>How many? 10%? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? 110%? I’ve spent 20 years in the
community. What is your experience in the community where you can
render an expert opinion?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There was nothing vague about my statements.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift
the assumed conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one’s own
position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.</p>
<p>Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the
general rule is that “the necessity of proof lies with he who
complains.” The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the
party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima
facie case has been made.</p>
Kind of like what you’ve been doing throughout this entire thread: replying to my factual arguments with imprecise attacks on my writing abilities.</p>
<p>
I never said public school didn’t have problems, though I wouldn’t use Texas as the best metric for public school success.</p>
<p>
Yes, 110% is definitely what I was thinking. Since that’s not even possible. I will readily admit that I have less experience than you (mine is purely secondary, from reading articles), but you are also more biased than me.</p>
<p>
It is vague to reference random homeschoolers.</p>
<p>I understand the burden of proof. As a competitive debater, it’s a requirement.</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at one of your unproven claims throughout this thread:
</p>
<p>Prove that having equal public education would create carbon copies of a model student.</p>
<p>
I do wish there were peer-reviewed sources on this, but regretfully not many serious researches are interested in homeschoolers.</p>
<p>However, I still can prove my point.</p>
<p>Apologia writes “science” curriculum for homeschoolers which is heavily biased towards intelligent design. In order for them to continue production, they must sell some of their books. Therefore, some portion of homeschooled students are being educated based on faith rather than science. Therefore, my claim is true.</p>
<p>In light of the moderator’s note, I would respectfully ask that we end this discussion. If you wish to continue it, feel free to create a new thread and send me the link.</p>
<p>The comments on your writing abilities are factual.</p>
<p>I also reply to your arguments.</p>
<p>“I never said public school didn’t have problems, though I wouldn’t use
Texas as the best metric for public school success.”</p>
<p>You made an assertion on the failure rate of homeschoolers in the are
of science. I’ve read a lot of the research on homeschooling. I’ve
read research indicating that they do well on psychological measures
and standardized tests but I haven’t specifically seen research on how
well they do in science. I have a lot of anecdotal stories because I’ve
been a part of the community for quite some time.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>All you need to do is to come up with the research to back up your
assertion.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m an expert in the area.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Then why did you ask me to do your research for you?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strawman.</p>
<p>"However, I still can prove my point.</p>
<p>Apologia writes “science” curriculum for homeschoolers which is
heavily biased towards intelligent design. In order for them to
continue production, they must sell some of their books. Therefore,
some portion of homeschooled students are being educated based on
faith rather than science. Therefore, my claim is true."</p>
<p>This isn’t a proof of your statement. You said science. Not a
particular area of science. A student can study physics, chemistry,
computer science, meteorology, oceanography, geology or astronomy
and learn science where there is no conflict with faith.</p>
<p>I had a discussion of this issue with a Christian AP Biology teacher.
She said that she has students of a number of beliefs. She teaches
them the material and they understand that this is the material that
they have to learn to do well on the test and that they have to answer
questions a certain way to score well. If it conflicts with their
beliefs, then they have to choose as to how they answer.</p>
<p>Look up the meaning of factual. You are subjectively attacking me; there is nothing factual about that.</p>
<p>
Look up what a strawman argument really is. You stated those exact words—I’m not putting them into your mouth. All I’m asking is for you to do the same thing you’re asking me about.</p>
<p>
That doesn’t remove the requirement that your prove your points without resorting to purely anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>
If one is deficient in a single area of science, they are deficient at science. You wouldn’t say someone knew math if all they knew was addition, no matter how well they knew it.</p>
<p>This is my last reply. This topic has gone significantly off-topic. Again, if you wish to continue, start a new thread.</p>
<p>Objective not subjective. Abilities made no sense in your context.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No.</p>
<p>I wrote:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>a != b</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of
informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many
subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no
fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an
authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or
implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be
exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be
proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the
assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism
and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that
contradicts the authority’s statement, then merely the fact that the
statement originated from the authority is not an argument for
ignoring the criticism. – wikipedia</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>By your reasoning, there are no high-school students that know science.
If a high-school student doesn’t study time complexity or RSA public-key
cryptosystems, but studies physics, biology and chemistry, then by your
reasoning, they are deficient at science.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I wouldn’t say that someone knew math. I would use a qualifier.</p>
<p>Grade-school math.
Middle-school math.
High-school math.
University math.
Discrete math.
Combinatorics.
Time Complexity.
Analysis.
Graph theory.
Number theory.
Mathematical modeling.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sure.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s still with us but probably shouldn’t be. The street-smart folks can
game the system with race and I guess the system provides employment for
those that want their schools to be politically correct. See KC Johnson’s
Durham in Wonderland for concrete examples of race in hiring and promoting
professors.</p>