4 ms·
>> "Saying that all experts are bad teachers is like saying all <insert ethnic group> are <insert stereotype>." To be fair, the linked article makes exactly 0
by avn2109 10y ago
>> "Saying that all experts are bad teachers is like saying all <insert ethnic group> are <insert stereotype>."
To be fair, the linked article makes exactly 0 claims about "all experts." Instead, the claims pertain to "experts," which could be fairly interpreted as "some experts" or even "a preponderance of experts."
If the article meant "all experts" it surely would have said so. Neither the string "all experts" nor "every expert" appears in the linked article.
I know my objection seems pedantic but I see this happen all the time, where someone makes a claim about e.g. "bicyclists do X" and then someone else gleefully and sanctimoniously jumps in with an objection like "How can you stereotype all cyclists like that, you are a terrible person!" When in fact the original claim explicitly did not pertain to "all cyclists" but rather merely to plural "cyclists." But now the claimer is super vilified as a cyclist-hater.
- sokoloff 10y agoI don't think "some experts" nor "plural cyclists" is the most reasonable interpretation. If I write "Black lives matter", it is not understood to mean that at least 2 lives matter (even though that's a perfectly valid, literal reading of the phrase).
- corysama 10y agoYou are arguing from extremes on both sides. A blog post is not a math PhD defense. Nor is it a formal systems proof. The words do not have one and only one possible interpretation. It is extremely common writing style to dedicate an article to "X does Y" when trying to talk about an interesting tendency or correlation. Unfortunately, it is also extremely common for people who work in formal systems to get an allergic reaction and feel compelled to point out that "X does Y" is not formally, literally, universally correct under all conceivable circumstances. This leads to distracting arguments that waste huge amounts of time that could have been spent discussing the interesting tendency/correlation and what to do about it. The proposed alternative is usually that the author should have peppered the article with caveats, exceptions, disclaimers and preferably citations of formally verified statistics. Again, this is not the Journal of Science. This is an opinion piece. Watering down every statement with disclaimers would be a distraction from the central point and would only serve to satisfy the allergies of a few highly formal readers.
- ryanmarsh 10y agoThis feels like every discussion on the internet. We give no quarter when it comes to generalizations. Wow, how's that for some generalizations?