4 ms·
Ah yes, Scott Adams, the great expert on education. Last I checked, he was somebody who made a semi-funny cartoon. Why are we listening to him for education ad
by groby_b 16y ago
Ah yes, Scott Adams, the great expert on education.
Last I checked, he was somebody who made a semi-funny cartoon. Why are we listening to him for education advice?
- Gatsky 16y agoI think HN is filled with great advice from people that are not experts in a particular field, but nonetheless have gained some kind of insight usually through experience. I have a general rule not to heed advice unless the advisor can back it up with some kind of personal experience. This excludes maybe 99% of financial advice, which I think is a good thing. Your criticism might be relevant if he was putting forward a comprehensive plan to reform the education system, but he is just trying to give another perspective on what the goals of education should be.
- groby_b 16y agoI do not object to Scott Adams giving his perspective. I do not object to the contents of his piece. I'm wondering what the heck it's doing on HN. The only reason this got any traction is that he happens to make Dilbert. His is not a particularly rare and/or valuable insight, and nothing in there makes it different from millions of other armchair education reformers. I expect more from HN links. My mistake for making a snarky comment instead of spelling it out properly.
- rajasharan 16y agobecause he writes good
- akadien 16y agoBecause he writes well.
- abbasmehdi 16y agoHarsh and myopic...
- nopassrecover 16y agoDoes that make his advice wrong? Disagree with what he says, not who he is.
- tomkinstinch 16y agoPosting an ad hominem attack doesn't make for a valid argument...
- 3am 16y agoPointing out that someone who is not an expert in a particular field is not an expert in that field is not 'ad hominem'. That is a 'true statement'. When you have a complicated system, and a non-expert comes in with a plan, then it's appropriate to dismiss it without overwhelming support. The burden of proof is on the non-expert. Expert time is too valuable to waste debunking every hobbyist solution. You see this on a small scale in mathematics, with professors getting incorrect (and frequently laughable) 'proofs' or outstanding unsolved problems or problems that have been proven not to have solutions.