Attitudes towards votech education [ATTN: Boyish-Tigerlilly]

[metavac]

Why, because I haven't reached the conclusions you have?

No, because you arrived at your conclusions fallaciously.

Sorry, not a valid rebuttal. I've seen two lit classes play from two entirely different playbooks, which shoots your little theory right in the asshole.

Now you're equivocating on context of universal. Remember, I began this tangent with the caveat "given a consistently applied standard." I never said that a standard had to be universally adopted by all educators. Otherwise, we could levy the same complaints at math and science instructors who use different scoring schemes valuing different aspects of partial work.

I'm sure you argue just as vigorously that the invisible dragon in your garage is just insubstantial, and the absense of evidence for it isn't evidence of absense. Wait, you won't, because you're talking out of your ass.

Just as I'm sure you'd argue as vigorously that there isn't any extraterrestrial intelligence anywhere in the universe due to lack of evidence. Or maybe supersymmetry is all bunk because we haven't found it at the the energy densities our labs can presently generate. Or maybe maybe every single unproven conjecture out there is all bunk because nobody's been able to...well...prove it. If you're going to be testy, at least don't be a joke about it.

This is pretty primitive stuff, Metavac, the idea that without evidence supporting a positive assertion, we throw out the positive assertion.

With sufficient evidence to the null. You don't simply point to your experience and say "this is generally true." That's how bullshitters operate. You study the problem, come up with a test that reasonable people can agree confidently will verify, falsify or at least rule out a claim, and then you execute it. That's how science is done.

What you're proposing is that we accept a positive claim, the humanities grading is subjective, based on the failure of a cursory Google Scholar search to turn up evidence for another positive claim (that humanities grading is generally performed using consistently applied standards).

[SirNitram]

Why, because I haven't reached the conclusions you have?

No, because you arrived at your conclusions fallaciously.

Prove it.

Sorry, not a valid rebuttal. I've seen two lit classes play from two entirely different playbooks, which shoots your little theory right in the asshole.

Now you're equivocating on context of universal. Remember, I began this tangent with the caveat "given a consistently applied standard." I never said that a standard had to be universally adopted by all educators. Otherwise, we could levy the same complaints at math and science instructors who use different scoring schemes valuing different aspects of partial work.

Then define the lower limit for application where you would consider it 'consistantly applied' so we can get on with this farce where you whine that you can't find evidence, I concur that I can't find evidence, we both search a bit more, repeat, and then you get upset when I point out there's no evidence for the positive assertion that there's a standard.

I'm sure you argue just as vigorously that the invisible dragon in your garage is just insubstantial, and the absense of evidence for it isn't evidence of absense. Wait, you won't, because you're talking out of your ass.

Just as I'm sure you'd argue as vigorously that there isn't any extraterrestrial intelligence anywhere in the universe due to lack of evidence. Or maybe supersymmetry is all bunk because we haven't found it at the the energy densities our labs can presently generate. Or maybe maybe every single unproven conjecture out there is all bunk because nobody's been able to...well...prove it. If you're going to be testy, at least don't be a joke about it.

At present, there's no reason to beleive there's extraterretrial intelligence capable or attempting to communicate with us. If they were incapable(Say, by being dead too long, or risen too recently, or whatever), the evidence wouldn't be there to find. A consistantly applied standard, however, should be locatable.

This is pretty primitive stuff, Metavac, the idea that without evidence supporting a positive assertion, we throw out the positive assertion.

With sufficient evidence to the null. You don't simply point to your experience and say "this is generally true." That's how bullshitters operate. You study the problem, come up with a test that reasonable people can agree confidently will verify, falsify or at least rule out a claim, and then you execute it. That's how science is done.

I'm not pointing to my experience as the sole source, numbskull. If that's what you've gotten out of it, then your reading comprehension is quite pitiful.

What you're proposing is that we accept a positive claim, the humanities grading is subjective, based on the failure of a cursory Google Scholar search to turn up evidence for another positive claim (that humanities grading is generally performed using consistently applied standards).

Don't lie, child. The subjectivity is based on a negative claim that, so far, has had no evidence shown to falsify it. And it's certainly falsifiable.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What do you believe, Nitram, the standard ought to be? Do you have any suggestions for increasing objectivity in the non-sciences, or is it intrinsic to the material and nature of study?

[SirNitram]

What do you believe, Nitram, the standard ought to be? Do you have any suggestions for increasing objectivity in the non-sciences, or is it intrinsic to the material and nature of study?

It depends on the course. I don't beleive you can have an objective standard in, say, literary analysis, but this is influenced by my first such class which gave us a running start with Young Goodman Brown, written explicitly to destroy the idea of literary analysis. There can be objective standards in some humanities, I have no doubt, but how many can reasonably be considered more than memorization? Memorization is an over-rated skill.

[metavac]

Prove it.

You proposed to verify a null result, claimed that you did, but didn't provide a reproducible test. Therefore, your claim that you verified the absence of a standard is fallacious.

For the record, here's my test. I went to Google Scholar. I entered 'humanities grading standard,' all separate words and returned 17,500 results. A survey of the first ten was inconclusive because the majority linked to journal articles required paid subscriptions. Also, I am unable to quantify how well my search deals with relevancy. I then revised my test based on a hint arrived at in one article dealing with holistic grading in engineering and science. I searched 'holistic grading humanities.' I returned around 4200 results. I am currently working my way through those to see how I can better refine my test.

Then define the lower limit for application where you would consider it 'consistantly applied' so we can get on with this farce where you whine that you can't find evidence, I concur that I can't find evidence, we both search a bit more, repeat, and then you get upset when I point out there's no evidence for the positive assertion that there's a standard.

I'm currently working on that. If you have some insight into the matter, how about instead of posturing you give me a hand?

At present, there's no reason to beleive there's extraterretrial intelligence capable or attempting to communicate with us. If they were incapable(Say, by being dead too long, or risen too recently, or whatever), the evidence wouldn't be there to find. A consistantly applied standard, however, should be locatable.

Provided that the test is judged to competently perform the task. You seem to keep glossing over that reality.

I'm not pointing to my experience as the sole source, numbskull. If that's what you've gotten out of it, then your reading comprehension is quite pitiful.

Then point to whatever other evidence you have, because you sure as hell haven't here.

Don't lie, child. The subjectivity is based on a negative claim that, so far, has had no evidence shown to falsify it. And it's certainly falsifiable.

Don't be a fucking idiot. You just rephrased what I wrote, dropping out the reference to the test to suit yourself.

[metavac]

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you skipped over the supersymmetry objection, Nitram.

[SirNitram]

[quote="metavac"

Then define the lower limit for application where you would consider it 'consistantly applied' so we can get on with this farce where you whine that you can't find evidence, I concur that I can't find evidence, we both search a bit more, repeat, and then you get upset when I point out there's no evidence for the positive assertion that there's a standard.

I'm currently working on that. If you have some insight into the matter, how about instead of posturing you give me a hand?

No. You are the one asserting, from the beginning, that the Humanities are just as hard as non-Humanities. You must carry the burden of proof. You can twist and writhe and stamp your feet and throw phrases into Google all you want, but it was your post:

I struggled with English romantic fiction course. We spent the semester mired in thirteen works and biweekly written responses on top of three research papers. I wasn't comfortable at all content analysis until close to the end, and you spent a lot of time in library or on citebases scouring for pertinent criticism and circumstances contemporary to a given work. The experience wasn't anywhere close to flipping through a book and giving your superficial impressions of it. That's not to say I had greater difficulty in my humanities courses than my math ones--I didn't. But in the end it's all I have, a personal experience that hinted at something less accessible than I could reach with the tools I had. We should at least see if some actual research bears one view out over the other.

That started this. Now you engage in attempts to throw people's attention away from this(Why do you think I'm going to get into a supersymmetry argument with you, Troll? Thread hijacking isn't done.), but you asserted that this is so and are only now seeming to try and find the evidence to support your claim, now that you are called on it from multiple angles.

[metavac]

No. You are the one asserting, from the beginning, that the Humanities are just as hard as non-Humanities.

Bullshit, Nitram. Show me one post where I made such assertions. I've doubted the contrary, but the fact is I don't know what to make of it.

You must carry the burden of proof. You can twist and writhe and stamp your feet and throw phrases into Google all you want, but it was your post:

I struggled with English romantic fiction course. We spent the semester mired in thirteen works and biweekly written responses on top of three research papers. I wasn't comfortable at all content analysis until close to the end, and you spent a lot of time in library or on citebases scouring for pertinent criticism and circumstances contemporary to a given work. The experience wasn't anywhere close to flipping through a book and giving your superficial impressions of it. That's not to say I had greater difficulty in my humanities courses than my math ones--I didn't. But in the end it's all I have, a personal experience that hinted at something less accessible than I could reach with the tools I had. We should at least see if some actual research bears one view out over the other.

That started this.

How dense you can you get? Read that quote again, especially this part: "That's not to say I had greater difficulty in my humanities courses than my math ones--I didn't. "

Are you spoiling for a fight that bad that you have to assign me my positions now? I'm doing my damndest to be very precise and narrow when I intend to be, but it's not going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write.

Now you engage in attempts to throw people's attention away from this (Why do you think I'm going to get into a supersymmetry argument with you, Troll?

Are you conceding on the supersymmetry point? Are you saying that supersymmetry isn't bunk simply because it hasn't been evidenced yet? The aim here isn't to throw you off, but to illustrate how stupid your reasoning is.

Thread hijacking isn't done.)

I started the damn thread. It was hijacked long ago by people with far more authority than I and I'm not complaining. We're now on God knows what tangent, and it seems the issue immediately at hand is dispelling the notion that you can just attribute a position to me willy nilly.

...but you asserted that this is so and are only now seeming to try and find the evidence to support your claim, now that you are called on it from multiple angles.

Your revisionism is sickening. Once again, my position has consistently been "I don't know." You have introduced new, positive claims you refuse to validate and then you've gotten testy when I offered to actually do the legwork for you.

[Nephtys]

What the hell are you even talking about on supersymmetry? Are you saying that because something isn't proven, it's not real? Evidence and proof are not the same thing, last I checked. You can have the first, without the second.

If you have neither, or neither in abundance, it's 'conjecture' at best, 'wild-ass fantasy' at worst. Isn't it that simple? What does this even have to do with the topic?

[Darth Wong]

That's an argument from ignorance, arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It is evidence of absence, fool. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it IS evidence of absence. That's why a suspect can't stand up in court and say that he should be found innocent because he MIGHT have an alibi, even though he can't actually produce one at the moment.

I've already pointed out that in my personal experience universal, objective standards for judging the content of humanities papers have been applied.

Show me how you would apply a "universal, objective standard" to grade a paper discussing (for example) the thematic elements of the book "To Kill A Mockingbird". Such a thing seems impossible. It's like saying that Olympic figure skating judges must be objective because they produce a number.

[metavac]

What the hell are you even talking about on supersymmetry? Are you saying that because something isn't proven, it's not real? Evidence and proof are not the same thing, last I checked. You can have the first, without the second.

This cannot be that hard for people. The supersymmetry point was brought up as an example of conjecture not rejected out of hand simply because of lack of evidence. There are tons more, in fact thousands every day that raise from conjecture to proof in mathematics. The larger point here regarded a hypothesis concerning grading in the humanities. Nitram believes he's fully justified rejecting out of hand because in the day since it was proposed no evidence has turned up for it. I'm defaulting to "I don't know" pending some refinement of my test.

If you have neither, or neither in abundance, it's 'conjecture' at best, 'wild-ass fantasy' at worst. Isn't it that simple? What does this even have to do with the topic?

This thread, which I started, ceased being anything about the topic around the fourth or fifth post. It was intended to address the value of votech education, a follow up to a promise I made to Boyish-Tigerlilly to dig up a survey on American attitudes. Hence the title. Since then, it's evolved into a free-for-all on the place and value of of a humanities education. The conjecture/hypothesis issue is a sideshow to that discussion.

[metavac]

It is evidence of absence, fool. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it IS evidence of absence. That's why a suspect can't stand up in court and say that he should be found innocent because he MIGHT have an alibi, even though he can't actually produce one at the moment.

That suspect can, however, request a continuance to try and produce evidence of an alibi. And in this case, your analogy only holds if the prosecution requires no evidence other than the lack of an alibi to establish guilt.

Show me how you would apply a "universal, objective standard" to grade a paper discussing (for example) the thematic elements of the book "To Kill A Mockingbird". Such a thing seems impossible. It's like saying that Olympic figure skating judges must be objective because they produce a number.

I'm chasing down a lead on something called 'holistic grading.' If you have some insight on the matter, I'd appreciate it.

[brianeyci]

I don't want to sound like I'm defending metavac, which I am not especially since I don't have the time to read all his shit. But we've had this discussion before about humanities, and RedImperator weighed in on how he grades essays, so there is a standard. Essays are subjective, but there's ways to lower the threshold to say plus or minus ten percent, or plus or minus five percent if you know exactly what they want. It's how essay cheating services work. You call them up, say you want 85%, and they write a custom essay for you. You hand it in, you get 85% plus or minus a bit or you get your money back. You pay less, you get a 60%, and you will never get an 80% if you paid for a 60% essay, trust me.

In the very high humanities, third or fourth year, yeah there's a lot of bullshitting. But lower, first or second year, they have specific things they're looking for. In particular, they have read all the sources, know the material intimately, and know almost every possible thesis you can come up with. They know what kind of essay most students will write and they rank them. There is a standard, even though it might not be objective. Students who figure out this standard can breeze through doing essays the night before, and those who don't have to go in for extra help.

[metavac]

In the very high humanities, third or fourth year, yeah there's a lot of bullshitting. But lower, first or second year, they have specific things they're looking for. In particular, they have read all the sources, know the material intimately, and know almost every possible thesis you can come up with. They know what kind of essay most students will write and they rank them. There is a standard, even though it might not be objective. Students who figure out this standard can breeze through doing essays the night before, and those who don't have to go in for extra help.

You don't happen to know if there's any sort of education research discussing methods of grading in the humanities, do you?

[brianeyci]

You don't happen to know if there's any sort of education research discussing methods of grading in the humanities, do you?

Of course there is.

But the better question is why are you opening your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about. I haven't read all your shit, but when you're arguing about argument from ignorance and so on and asking other poeple to do your homework it sounds like you don't know crap. Maybe you should leave defending humanities to people who have actually majored in humanities, people like Boyish and Simplicus, or at the very least to people who know where to look for sources.

[Darth Wong]

It is evidence of absence, fool. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it IS evidence of absence. That's why a suspect can't stand up in court and say that he should be found innocent because he MIGHT have an alibi, even though he can't actually produce one at the moment.

That suspect can, however, request a continuance to try and produce evidence of an alibi. And in this case, your analogy only holds if the prosecution requires no evidence other than the lack of an alibi to establish guilt.

Don't be an idiot. There is evidence that math and science are more objectively graded than the humanities; there is precisely one correct answer to a math/science problem, and it does not require semantic interpretation. It is a number. Against that, you have provided nothing, yet you insist that your argument should be taken seriously.

I'm chasing down a lead on something called 'holistic grading.' If you have some insight on the matter, I'd appreciate it.

See above.

[metavac]

Of course there is.

Then what is it.

But the better question is why are you opening your mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.

And even better question is why are you assuming I have?

I haven't read all your shit, but when you're arguing about argument from ignorance and so on and asking other poeple to do your homework it sounds like you don't know crap.

Show me one post where I've done that.

Maybe you should leave defending humanities to people who have actually majored in humanities, people like Boyish and Simplicus, or at the very least to people who know where to look for sources.

Except I'm not defending the humanities. I am saying, repeatedly, that I have concerns about certain lines of attack and I'm asking questions.

[metavac]

Don't be an idiot. There is evidence that math and science are more objectively graded than the humanities; there is precisely one correct answer to a math/science problem, and it does not require semantic interpretation. It is a number. Against that, you have provided nothing, yet you insist that your argument should be taken seriously.

Even assuming you didn't mean to say that math and science necessarily reduce to equations exactly generating scalars, you're still plain wrong. For one, probability is the mathematical study of ambiguity, as its foundation in measure theory. And even if we ignore probability's application in the sciences, we're still left with problem of attaching semantics to the notation in any application of any maths. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics arise entirely because of the semantic ambiguity surrounding what it means for a wave function to collapse.

Better yet, consider the whole exercise of experiment design. When you boil it down you're going to end up, hopefully, with a set of test parameters that people will confidently find meaningful. In short, my test is crap. So is yours. Let's find a new one.

[metavac]

And just so we're clear, I would never argue that the scope of ambiguity in the sciences or maths approaches that of the humanities. There is a meaningful difference between say an uncertainty between theory and measurement of the energy density of the vacuum at a precision of 10e-9 J and some uncountable scope of possible interpretations of a poem's meaning.

[SirNitram]

Metavac, I will repeat the question you are dodging like an amatuer one more time, bereft of anything else, because I naively think you might be honest for a moment.

Define what you would consider sufficient evidence to conclude a 'a consistently applied standard', which is your own words.

Either define it so there can be a debate instead of this stamping of feet, strawmanning, and ridiculous parallels(The justice system is not and never will be the same standards as science, and only a moron thinks so), or shut up.

[metavac]

Metavac, I will repeat the question you are dodging like an amatuer one more time, bereft of anything else, because I naively think you might be honest for a moment.

Define what you would consider sufficient evidence to conclude a 'a consistently applied standard', which is your own words.

And I'll repeat, under the naive assumption that you'll listen, that I'm working on it. I don't know what such a standard, if it exists, looks like, so I'm taking the time to actually research the matter.

Either define it so there can be a debate instead of this stamping of feet, strawmanning, and ridiculous parallels(The justice system is not and never will be the same standards as science, and only a moron thinks so), or shut up.

One, the justice system analogy was Mike's, not mine. Two, I guess that means you're not willing to help out. In that case, I'll get back to you when I have something.

[SirNitram]

Metavac, I will repeat the question you are dodging like an amatuer one more time, bereft of anything else, because I naively think you might be honest for a moment.

Define what you would consider sufficient evidence to conclude a 'a consistently applied standard', which is your own words.

And I'll repeat, under the naive assumption that you'll listen, that I'm working on it. I don't know what such a standard, if it exists, looks like, so I'm taking the time to actually research the matter.

Are you being purposefully dense? How about I re-word it for you, with smaller words:

What per-cent-age of courses must use a standard for it to be 'consistantly applied'?

Either define it so there can be a debate instead of this stamping of feet, strawmanning, and ridiculous parallels(The justice system is not and never will be the same standards as science, and only a moron thinks so), or shut up.

One, the justice system analogy was Mike's, not mine. Two, I guess that means you're not willing to help out. In that case, I'll get back to you when I have something.

No, I'm not willing to do your work for you. Because as much as you want things to be otherwise, there's no reason to beleive a theory that has zero evidence; I suspect(But cannot state firmly, because guess what? Don't know about it, and at present, do not care.) that your shell-game with supersymmetry is inaccurate because mathematical modelling suggests it's right. If it lacks even that, it's rightfully fringe science.

[metavac]

Are you being purposefully dense? How about I re-word it for you, with smaller words:

What per-cent-age of courses must use a standard for it to be 'consistantly applied'?

Come off it, Nitram. 'Consistently applied' refers to its use by an individual instructor.

No, I'm not willing to do your work for you. Because as much as you want things to be otherwise, there's no reason to beleive a theory that has zero evidence.

Please. I've consistently said that 'I don't know' whether such standards exist or if they're in general use. I'll thank you not to attribute beliefs and wishes to me in a half-assed attempt to salvage your other nonsense. And once again, I'll get back to you if and when I find what I'm looking for.

I suspect(But cannot state firmly, because guess what? Don't know about it, and at present, do not care.) that your shell-game with supersymmetry is inaccurate because mathematical modelling suggests it's right. If it lacks even that, it's rightfully fringe science.

Then how is it any less mathematically sane to suggest that applying some objective standard to evaluate the reasoning of work product in the humanities can render objective results?

[SirNitram]

Are you being purposefully dense? How about I re-word it for you, with smaller words:

What per-cent-age of courses must use a standard for it to be 'consistantly applied'?

Come off it, Nitram. 'Consistently applied' refers to its use by an individual instructor.

Nothing in the phrase 'consistantly applied' indicates a single instructor. You are a liar if you think otherwise.

If you meant this but failed to make that clear, fine, but you have basically produced a meaningless division: One good instructor in an educational system of how many? Two good instructors? The end result is that we get back to the Humanities being subjectively graded. Even if one individual is consistant they can still be subjective.

No, I'm not willing to do your work for you. Because as much as you want things to be otherwise, there's no reason to beleive a theory that has zero evidence.

Please. I've consistently said that 'I don't know' whether such standards exist or if they're in general use. I'll thank you not to attribute beliefs and wishes to me in a half-assed attempt to salvage your other nonsense. And once again, I'll get back to you if and when I find what I'm looking for.

Which is what? One good instructor? One instructor who utilizes a particular method consistantly? What do you think that will prove? Or did your reply just now become one of those endless 'Oh, I agree, but..' statement I get from you?

I suspect(But cannot state firmly, because guess what? Don't know about it, and at present, do not care.) that your shell-game with supersymmetry is inaccurate because mathematical modelling suggests it's right. If it lacks even that, it's rightfully fringe science.

Then how is it any less mathematically sane to suggest that applying some objective standard to evaluate the reasoning of work product in the humanities can render objective results?

It isn't less sane. As I said earlier, I suspect some humanities can be objectively graded. The question isn't can. As I said earlier, in an idealized universe, they would be. The question is are they. And there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

[metavac]

Nothing in the phrase 'consistantly applied' indicates a single instructor. You are a liar if you think otherwise.

My God, it's like talking to on IPod with one song on loop. How many times do I have to dig this up for you, Nitram?

"The strength of reason behind an argument submitted in a paper can be graded just as objectively as the correctness of a multiple choice math question, given a consistently applied standard."

Do you see anything in that sentence that pluralizes "argument," "paper," or "multiple choice math question?" Do you? No, because I didn't fucking pluralize them. Obviously I'm talking about a single assignment, which implies an individual instructor.

If you meant this but failed to make that clear, fine, but you have basically produced a meaningless division: One good instructor in an educational system of how many? Two good instructors? The end result is that we get back to the Humanities being subjectively graded. Even if one individual is consistant they can still be subjective.

As can an instructor in any subject, humanities or not, if we allow for the grading formula. That's the fucking point. Let me rephrase it for you.

Given a grading system specifying some reasonable measure of strength for an argument (it follows or it doesn't), an argument in a paper can be as objectively evaluated as a multiple choice math question. You start with the base arguments and work your way up the constructions to the thesis. Likewise, you start from question 1 on your SAT Math section, and work your way down to the end of the test. Get it?

Which is what? One good instructor? One instructor who utilizes a particular method consistantly? What do you think that will prove?

I'm looking for the methods themselves.

Or did your reply just now become one of those endless 'Oh, I agree, but..' statement I get from you?

I don't understand why you have a problem with me expressing agreement with some reservations. I don't particularly care. What gets me is your insistence on picking whatever bogeyman you want to beat up on and tossing him at me.

It isn't less sane. As I said earlier, I suspect some humanities can be objectively graded. The question isn't can. As I said earlier, in an idealized universe, they would be. The question is are they. And there's no evidence to support that conclusion.

Let's try it from this angle. How do you know there is no evidence?