🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:sGPpd.7197$cE3.2158@clgrps12...
> In article <3QOpd.193792$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.
>
So?  You knew the meaning, so it is semantics.
>
> >>
> >> >  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!
>
Not on your life.  I am smart enough not to waste money.
>
> >> 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.
>
I don't do ad hominem fallacies.  Any respect, or lack of it, I have for you
has to do with your arguments.  I don't know anything esle about you, so I
don't judge.  You will find no ad hominem argument in this entire thread
from me.

>
> >> 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?
>
Go re-read the thread. If you know anything about philosophy, you'll have no
difficulty in finding them.
>
> >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.
>
Precisely.  The validity of the argument is more important than the truth or
falsity of it.  Socrates made that clear in a number of his writings and it
is the basis of modern philosophy.

> - 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.
>
Again.  The reasoning process is what is important; not the conclusion.
Your argument still shows you know nothing about philosophy and are simply
regurgitating references that prove my point not yours.  So, thank you.
This makes it easier; not that it is that difficult anyway.


> - If the teacher makes an error of logic or fact, it is acceptable for a
> student to correct the teacher. "
>
Always has been the case, which is why Socratic teachings also force the
pupil to argue both sides of the argument.  Any good Socratic pupil should
have no difficulty with that since reasoned arguments are not dependent on
the premises or the conclusion.  That seems to have been a rather important
part of the equation that was beyond your grasp.

> 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.
>
>
Doesn't seem you even know what your end of the bargain is and it is clear
you are not the teacher.