Please give me advice

Well, that clears up at least two things.

 

I do not believe that this is a matter of skepticism. I believe that this is a matter of fact. Sitting in a classroom with other students and an instructor is NOT the same as sitting in front of a computer. Now you may argue that one is not necessarily better than the other, you may argue that one may be more convenient than the other, you may argue that one carries some stigma that the other doesn't carry, you may argue many things in regards to the differences/similarities of DL v. traditional classroom-based instruction, but pleasepleaseplease don't try to say that they are the same.
Jack
(Different does not equal better/worse. It only indicates that they are ummm, different)

 

Soundness versus Validity

After my earlier posting, herein, I've had a few private communications about the whole soundness versus validity thing... though why I do not fully understand.

At any rate, rather than get into it here, let me, please, just refer everyone to this article.

Good luck!

 

Yo DesElms:

Piece all ready.

You’ve types 8 million words and still not addressed my original critique, where you incorrectly generalized what people mean when they say "accreditation" if they in fact don’t know much about accreditation.

I guess enduring personal attacks by folks like you is just part of this board.

OH WAIT! I get it, you’ve employed the Ad Hominem method of argumentation! Keep the criticisms coming; it lets you know you’re alive.

Oh well, keep the bad argumentation styles!!

Piece Out Man!!


P. S. To bad about you fumbling the ball on that whole Validity and soundness thing, don’t worry though, you’ll recover someday.

 

No wait, I pushed the submit button to quick, I had intended to sound a little more conciliatory, but didn’t give the post a second read until just now.

You’ve types so many things meant to inflame it is hard to take the high road here….

 

They never seem to know when to give it up

Ohgod.

Well... I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this reaction. After all, no one likes losing... and, as we can see, here, some (like dlady, for example) become positively unglued by it.

Sorry, dlady, to have so rattled your cage that you're now reduced to glaring misspellings; amateurish, humorless and point-missing attempts at shot-from-the-hip one-liners which fall far from their marks; rambling mischaracterization of the issues; tripping over yourself to get some payback; immature refusal to acknowledge when you've been proven wrong and to abandon your flawed thesis even when it's been shown to be unsound; unwillingness to surcease even when those witnessing it are becoming embarrassed for you; inability to recognize when you took the low road in the first place, and how that has now brought all this upon you...

...and the betrayal of your age, or street heritage, or lack of education (or, perhaps, all three) by your inappropriate use of the word "yo" in written communication... or at all, for that matter.

It's nice to see that at least "ad hominem" is in your dictionary... though, apparently, the proper capitalization of it is not. Clearly, "peace" and "too" are not, either. "Yo" must be.

[shakes head in disbelief]

 

The web allows us to “be” many things, but at times I wish we were all in a room together - face to face. I think we would treat each other a little differently.

 

Don't assume

Don't bet on that... at least not in my case. I don't hide behind a fake username; and I sign every single post with my real name that I use in real life...

...all the while knowing that every syllable of it will be searchable on Google (and/or in this web site's search tool) for as long as this site exists -- which is likely to be for a long, long, long time.

Unlike many who feel more free to spout off in chat rooms, or in instant messengers, or in forums (like this one, for example), or even in email -- ostensibly, I suppose, because they feel less constrained or inhibited; or more hidden or protected by the impersonal, typing-only nature of the Internet and its Worldwide Web -- I never type anything I wouldn't say, or say anything I wouldn't type. It's all the same, no matter what, whether it's in writing, or on the phone, or face-to-face. Believe me on this. I've been both around for a long time, and doing this for a long time, and I never, ever say or write anything that I'm unwilling to wear... forever, if it comes to that.

In fact I'd not only say exactly the same things in person, but I'd be doing so with the considerable added impact of my radio-announcer-like voice (that needs no microphone, even in a large hall... believe me) and my imposing physical presence and forceful delivery... which things I routinely use to intimidate -- and always successfully -- when it's called for. If, on top of that the person with whom I'm talking in person would happen to be one of the intentionally-troublemaking kunckleheads around here (or in other fora), it would likely be all I could do to keep from punctuating with a swift kick to the ass, as long as I was at it! Of course, I wouldn't do that last part, obviously. I'm just saying it that if it were one of the well-known idiots around here (or from other fora) with whom I was talking, it might well be all I could do to keep from teaching the guy an old fashioned lesson, as long as I had his attention.

The person I "be" on the web is the exact same person I "be" on the phone which is the exact same person I "be" face-to-face. There's only one me to be.

• "I ams what I ams and that's all that I ams."
  
  -- Popeye, 1929

Now, that said, I will point out -- and I know this, in part, from years of experience in the IT industry -- that the written-only word in places like this deprives us of essential cues (both visual and audible) which help us to determine when the person we're listening to is happy or sad or angry or just kidding around, etc. Absent those cues, I'm quite certain that I come across here a quite a differently -- and likely somewhat more offensively, at times -- than I do in person, where my tone of voice and genstures and facial expressions would give my words the context that the listener would need to realize that most of the time I'm either screwin' around or being sarcastic and, in any case, mean no harm. Therefore, I'm quite certain that most here would find me, in person or on the phone, somewhat more delightful, generally, than I often come across here, in these posts.

But, believe me, I'd still be the same person -- same words, same boldness, same often irritating and insufferable arrogance at times... the whole enchilada! That said, people who meet me in places like this are often stunned by my diplomacy and restraint in person -- especially in groups. But that doesn't mean I can't switch on either serious challenge or downright intimidating confrontation in the flash of an eye. It just depends on the situation... as is true with everyone, I dare say...

...even dlady, I'll bet. Even you.

 

Thank god for beer

 

Re: With eyes wide open...

Okay, here we go, lets see if we can’t spend some time on the initial critique of your statement, that I, in all honestly, raised rather politely what seems like days ago.

DesElms: here is your assignment.

Please provide support for your statement that:

Quote: Moreover, because most people don't really know much about what "accreditation" actually means, when most people say "accredited," they actually mean regionally-accredited (and not nationally-accredited... whether they realize it or not);

Please support this statement without:

Personally attacking me for questioning it
Creating STRAWMAN arguments to argue against
Appealing to Authority
Appealing to Belief
Appealing to Common Practice
Appealing to Consequences of a Belief
Appealing to Emotion
Appealing to Fear
Appealing to Flattery
Appealing to Novelty
Appealing to Pity
Appealing to Popularity
Appealing to Ridicule
Appealing to Spite
Appealing to Tradition
Or any other fallacious arguments…

Don’t create issues by debating common usages of words

Don’t question my upbringing, education, or ethnic background based upon your perception of typos (we all make them).

Simply provide EVIDENCE to SUPPORT your claim that the set of “Most people that don’t know much about accreditation” actually mean regionally-accredited (and not nationally-accredited... whether they realize it or not).

I don’t think you can do it. Here is your chance to prove me wrong for real. Either you can or your cant. Pass or fail.

We’re all waiting…

 

Thank god even more for Glenlivet

 

Good scotch, and beaters of dead horses

Ah, yes... a man who recognizes the superiority of a single malt scotch... albeit not the best of that category's breed. Still... gotta' like that!

Maybe that's because it was just days ago.

[sigh]

Oy.

Okay, stop right there. Unless you were planning on cutting me a check, you're not givin' me any assignments... in fact, especially you, of all people. I mean, c'mon! Let's review, shall we?

1. You question my assertion about what people mean, generally (not everyone, mind you, but just most people), when they say "accredation." You do this, it seems to the reader, just for its own sake... which, of course, is always the worst reason. Further, you do so despite the fact that it's counter-intuitive (i.e., it runs against what anyone, even without the benefit of a study or poll, could imagine must be true because of what we do know about the state of things, generally); and you do so despite the fact that we actually do have a reliable study at which we can point (i.e., Rich Douglas's work) which, per Rich's own words to you in a post in this very thread, would appear to bear out my assertion. Add to that the fact that most any psychologist or sociologist reading this thread would quickly recognize you as one of those people (and anyone who's done polling and survey work has run into a bunch of them) who simply cannot get his/her mind wrapped around the idea of characterizing a given population based on the results of either a formal study, or the mere casual observation, of a small subset of said population; and, like all others who pollsters and survey takers have encountered like you, your reason would appear to be that there could not possibly be any validity to such study or observation because you are a member of said population and you certainly don't share that opinion so, therefore, you, alone, believe that your dissent invalidates the results. You're not the first person I've encountered like this; and you'll probably not be the last. Some people are just like that. They just can't or won't generalize. It has to do with their ego and self-esteem and all kinds of other psychological stuff that I'm just not going to get into here... or anywhere, for that matter. You refuse to accept what any person, once fully advised in the premises, would be able to intuit; and which, moreover, is actually supported by meaningful reasearch work, in any case. You challenge me to an "assignment" to document a point that's already documented. You won't accept the information that's already in front of your nose. Why in godsname should I -- or even you -- believe that any new information would change your mind. It's just not possible to change your mind on this... you've made that painfully (and embarrassingly, for you) clear. You don't buy-in to a fundamental notion into which you'd need to buy-in in order to appreciate any results of a poll or study where your views end-up being in the minority. So, with you as the judge, at any rate, this is an unwinnable argument for me. The reader, on the other hand, can clearly see the problem... and that's really all that matters.
   
2. Your underlying intransigence -- ne, obstinance -- is further illustrated by your embarrassing refusal to even consider the possibility -- even after the second time you were informed of it (which would have given any reasonable person sufficient pause to rethink it and go make sure they're actually right before blurting out, like a toothless, beer-swilling resident of a backwater trailer park, their ignorant insistence) -- that you could actually be wrong about the easily provable difference between soundness and validity. Even when you were shown the difference; even when you were referred to authoritative sources where you could read about it; even when any reader here who has ever taken an introductory (and I stress the word "introductory," here) philosophy or logic course could see that you were verily humiliating yourself with your refusal to get it... you stubbornly persisted -- in exactly the same sort of way that you refuse to generalize.[/list=1]Both of those things speak to your personality and what would at least appear to evidence some sort of minor disorder thereof. I don't need to respond to your challenge. I've already shown myself to be the more reasonable person who both makes more sense in a better presentation than yours; and who offers-up arguments that are first valid, and then shown to be sound because I bothered to cite authoritative sources and/or bolstered them with a logical appeal to what any reasonable person may, once armed with the information we do have, reasonably intuit. That you don't happen to be one of said reasonable persons is simply not my problem... though it would certainly seem to be yours.
   
   This debate is over... and has been, for longer than you apparently realize. Still, you persist. Fine. You want to beat this dead horse? Okeedokee. Now here's your assignment -- which, unlike the one you tried to issue to me, I will back-up with ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS of cold, hard U.S. currency if you can use it to prove me wrong:
   • You go out and find 1,000 everyday working people, selected more or less randomly, off the street; but selected pursuant to good, rational, commonly-employed survey technique in order to establish a sample that is a truly representative of cross-section of everyday Americans. Keep in mind that, for our purposes, here, those who frequent forums like this would not fall into that category since only the tiniest, tiniest, statistically-insignificant fraction of Americans are members or readers in places like this. Make sure that said 1,000 people don't talk to, see, or hear one another before, during or after they are asked the survey questions; nor should they know, in advance, what the survey is about.
     
   • Prepare your questions of them in a way that is pursuant to good survey/polling technique commonly employed by universities and/or professional survey/polling organizations; and such that the way in which the questions are worded, and/or the order or way in which they're asked will not inadvertently render any of the results invalid, skewed or biased in any way.
     
   • Ask the questions of each person separately and individually, and in a manner commonly employed by universities and/or professional survey/polling organizations so as not to pollute, bias or render invalid the results in any way.
     
   • Perform (or have performed) a proper and appropriate statistical analysis on the results so that said results may be adjusted as needed to ensure reliability pursuant to the methods of doing so commonly employed by universities and/or professional survey/polling organizations.
     
   • Prepare the results in a comprehensive report which painfully documents each of the steps you took along the way such that any reader -- including those who do surveys and polls for a living and/or those who hold advanced degrees in or who teach survey methodologies at the college level -- would be satisfied that you did everything right.[/list=a]and if you do all of that, then here is what I believe you'll find:
     • That most Americans don't really know what accreditation actually means; will assume it's something the government does... if they even know that much about it; and are pretty sure the high school and/or college that they attended was accredited, even if they're not sure how or by precisely whom; and,
       
     • that the vast majority of them won't know "regional" accreditation from the "national" or "specialty" varieties and, moreover, would be surprised to learn that there's more than one kind in any case; or that they believe that "accredited" and "regionally accredited" pretty much mean the same thing; and,
       
     • that the vast majority of them will have heard of the U.S. Department of Education, but won't know CHEA from squat; and,
       
     • that if you asked them to name five schools or colleges that they were pretty sure were accredited, they'd mostly all turn out to be regionally accredited; and, therefore,
       
     • when the vast majority of them say "accredited," they really mean "regionally accredited" -- not so much because that's their actual preference but, rather, because regional accreditation happens to be the only kind about which they've ever heard.
     Oh... but, wait: I forgot, you wouldn't be able conclude those things because, after all, you can't generalize! Sorry. My mistake.
     
     But seriously, sarcasm aside, I don't understand, dlady, why you can't just intuit this, even without a study. I boggles the mind! All I can figure, aside from your now well-established personality quirks, is that it's because you're so unwilling to accept that national accreditation just doesn't have the same ubiquity -- and, therefore, the same acceptance and utility, like it or not -- as does regional accreditation. I'm sorry that so disappoints you -- heck, it even disappoints me -- but that's just the way it is...
     
     ...and all your wishing won't change that.
     
     
     No, dlady, we're all not... that is, unless, maybe, you've got a mouse in your pocket or something.

 

Well, I’m going to have to give you a FAIL on your assignment. But I give it an F+, because I can see that some effort went into it. Had I provided the assignment with a more open grading scale, instead of pass/fail, I could have maybe been more lenient.

You were instructed to provide EVIDENCE to SUPPORT your claim that the set of “Most people that don’t know much about accreditation” actually mean regionally-accredited (and not nationally-accredited... whether they realize it or not).

You did not do this, but you did propose a list of assumptions around the topic, and proposed an approach (albeit slightly flawed, but workable with refinement).

The main reason you get an F is because you went outside of your assigned argumentation parameters, employing about 10 different fallacious argumentation styles, including ad hominem, Strawman, appealing to authority, appealing to belief, appealing to common practice, and so on (even though I specifically identified those as problems in your prior arguments).

I agree the discussion is over; but I have three recommendations for you:

First, stop using statements you can’t support.

Second, consider a class or a book on Fallacies. This will help you understand what a credible argument looks like and help you avoid some common pitfalls to bad styles.

Third, your style of constant personal attacks to anyone that would raise a question discredits you. I’m sure you’re a bright person who feels like they have something to contribute, but it seems to get all rapped up inside you and come out very negatively, making you look childish.

I hope this helps you out, and I’ll be seeing you around on the boards. (No need to reply anymore to this, I’ll know you read this.)

Peace.

 

It's like the film My Cousin Vinny

Gregg and Dlady,

Honestly, I have never seen two people spend so much time and effort annoying each other since my brother met his wife. They're living happily ever after.

Just something to think about.

 

I repeat: Oy.

 

Re: It's like the film My Cousin Vinny

Yeah... the part where Marisa Tomei's character (Mona Lisa Vito) keeps stomping her foot on the porch.

Actually, as I think about it... if dlady looked anything like Marisa Tomei I might have to re-think my opinion of her.

[pause... for reflection]

Naah!

Then you're not paying attention and/or haven't read enough threads around here!