🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3QOpd.193792$df2.62360@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>> In the socratic method, yes.  I claimed you are unaware of the
>responsibilities
>> of the teacher or the student, and I maintain that claim.
>>
>
>Again.  You clearly have no idea about what you are taliking about.

And what makes that clear?  Certainly not reasoning, since you're not providing 
any. 

>>
>> > Therefore, your claim of being
>> >"a high-functioning autodidak",
>>
>> autodidact.  Need a dictionary?
>>
>Audodidact is the angliciszed spelling of the Greek Autodidak; to be
>self-taught.  No, I don't need a dictionary, and when I do, I readily use
>one.
>

You quoted me and I was speaking english, therefore it's a misquote, on par 
with most of your lying.


>>
>> >  If that is the case, why are you not
>> >a professor at some recognized university.
>>
>> Are you offering to pay my tuition and finance my quest for tenure?
>>
>If there is a will Danny boy, there is a way.

By all means, load up my paypal account!  


>> Why bother?  While tenured proffing is a pretty good gig, I know how to
>make
>> money much more easily.  I couldn't care less how 'acceptable' my claims
>are,
>> wild or not.
>>
>Because otherwise, you are simply proving my point that you are likely some
>high-school dropout with dillusions of grandure.  You have certainly
>provided ample eveidence of that.

You keep hinting towards evidence yet all you provide is ad hominem.


>> Every one of my arguments is evidence that I can form cogent, valid
>arguments.
>>  Since you are not challenging a specific argument your statement is
>vacuous.
>>
>>
>No.  It is evidence that you have no idea about the rules of an argument,
>and that you are certainly good at circular fallacies and ad hominem
>arguments and not much else.

Where is this evidence?  Which argument was circular?  


>There is no such thing as fact in any Scoratic method.  Again, eveidence
>that you nothing about which you babble on about.
>

Oh really?  Now we're getting somewhere!  You are providing evidence you are 
full of shit!

"A skillful teacher can actually teach students to think for themselves using 
this method. This is the only classic method of teaching that is known to 
create genuinely autonomous thinkers. There are some crucial principles to this 
form of teaching:

- The teacher must set the topic of instruction, and the student must agree to 
this.
 
-The student must agree to attempt to answer questions from the teacher. 

- The teacher must be willing to accept any correctly-reasoned answer. That is, 
the reasoning process must be considered more important than facts. 

- The teacher's questions must expose errors in the students' reasoning. That 
is, the teacher must reason more quickly and correctly than the student, and 
discover errors in the students' reasoning, and then formulate a question which 
the students cannot answer except by a correct reasoning process. To perform 
this service, the teacher must be very quick-thinking about the classic errors 
in reasoning.
 
- If the teacher makes an error of logic or fact, it is acceptable for a 
student to correct the teacher. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Now, whether I am the student or the teacher is unclear, but I've definitely 
fulfulled my end of the bargain.  You, on the other hand, have not, whether you 
consider yourself the student or the teacher.  You are nothing but the 
blowhard.