NationStates Jolt Archive

On another forum I belong to, I've gotten into a debate about whether teachers need to be trained or not. I think they do, but some others don't claiming it's enthusiasm that makes you a good teacher not a bit of paper.
One of them, who has no quals, has used the example of a qualified teacher he used to work with who was an alcoholic, who "came to work with booze on their breath multiple mornings. Other co-workers accussed them of sexual harassment. They missed 2 weeks of work because they almost cut off their thumb by punching through a window whilst drunk. Pieces of paper/certificates (i.e. qualifications) do NOT reflect the quality of the person or the work they are capable of producing."

Now what fallacy is it that he's making there?
His argument is:
He's a qualified teacher
He's an alcoholic.
His alcoholism stops him being a good teacher.
Therefore teaching qualifications don't make you a good teacher.

It's not quite an ad Hominum is it?
I've looked up on various fallacy websites but still can't really isolate which one it is exactly. So I figure I'll come here and ask, as you lot are perhaps the most fallacy-knowledgeable people in the world!

On another forum I belong to, I've gotten into a debate about whether teachers need to be trained or not. I think they do, but some others don't claiming it's enthusiasm that makes you a good teacher not a bit of paper.
One of them, who has no quals, has used the example of a qualified teacher he used to work with who was an alcoholic, who "came to work with booze on their breath multiple mornings. Other co-workers accussed them of sexual harassment. They missed 2 weeks of work because they almost cut off their thumb by punching through a window whilst drunk. Pieces of paper/certificates (i.e. qualifications) do NOT reflect the quality of the person or the work they are capable of producing."

Now what fallacy is it that he's making there?
His argument is:
He's a qualified teacher
He's an alcoholic.
His alcoholism stops him being a good teacher.
Therefore teaching qualifications don't make you a good teacher.

It's not quite an ad Hominum is it?
I've looked up on various fallacy websites but still can't really isolate which one it is exactly. So I figure I'll come here and ask, as you lot are perhaps the most fallacy-knowledgeable people in the world!

Well, you can be a qualified teacher without qualifications, but how would anyone know? Lie detector tests?

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Maybe? I'm not sure if that fits, but it's the first thing I thought of. I would wait for someone more knowledgeable to suggest something though.

Relying on anecdotal evidence is fallacious enough, really. Beyond that, he's probably committing a base rate fallacy, and he probably knows it. Pointing it out won't help.

Isn't there one that translates into "does not follow"? Essentially one conclusion does not follow the other. I'll look it up.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Maybe? I'm not sue if that fits, but it's the first thing I thought of. I would wait for someone more knowledgeable to suggest something though.

That's the one I was thinking of I'm pretty sure.

Of course I got the translation all wrong, but yeah, that's the one. It's a false cause. Credentialing isn't meant to weed out traits like alcoholism, it's to create a basic teaching skill set. All he has managed to do is prove that credentialing alone does not cover everything that could go wrong, there is nothing to suggest that the alternative would weed out an alcoholic.

It's a variant of post-ergo-propter, cum-ergo-propter. His qualification certifies his being a good teacher. His alcoholism prevents it much in the same way a decapitation would. You don't need to point out the type of fallacy, just point out that decapitated licensed teachers don't make good teachers either, but that has nothing to do with the licensing helping them, and plenty to do with the lack of a head.

Hey, I got something right for change!

Oh no, don't take conformation from me as a sign you're right...you're copying off the wrong kid's test

Oh no, don't take conformation from me as a sign you're right...you're copying off the wrong kid's test
shit.

*erases answers...pokes cute girl sitting to the left to "borrow a pencil"*

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Maybe? I'm not sure if that fits, but it's the first thing I thought of. I would wait for someone more knowledgeable to suggest something though.
That one seems to fits best. I do like Heikoku's comparison. Hope you don't mind if I use it!
I just wanted to sound like I knew what the hell I was talking about before pointing out his fallacious argument. All he's actually proved (if anything) is that alcoholics don't make good teachers. The teacher's alcoholism does not, in any way, invalidate the training he did to become a teacher.

Thanks for the suggestions. I knew this site would eventually be of some use (other than a great waste of time!)

I'd say it's not really a fallacy, at all.

It appears (based on what is in the OP) that the assumption that 'qualifications = good' teacher is being treated as though it were an absolute.

Thus, showing that the absolute can be wrong - even in theory - attacks the initial assumption.

Without seeing the full wording, it's not easy to be sure, of course. It could be a variant on 'denial of the antecedent'.

If you are a good teacher, you'll have the qualifications
You're not a good teacher,
Therefore, you won't have the qualifications...

Like I said, though - it doesn't quite fit.

That one seems to fits best. I do like Heikoku's comparison. Hope you don't mind if I use it!

Not at all. You just stroked my ego. ;)

That one seems to fits best. I do like Heikoku's comparison. Hope you don't mind if I use it!

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc only works if he's claiming a correlation between the alcoholism and the "qualifications." Extrapolating a probability from a specific incident without taking base rates into account seems more like what he's doing. That'd be a base rate fallacy.

I'd say it's a bit of if A then B, not B so not A--whatever the hell that is called.

He seems to be saying that if credentials are necessary, then credentialed people should be good teachers. Because the teacher he knows is not a good teacher, then credentials must not be necessary.

Without seeing the full wording, it's not easy to be sure, of course.

This, moar context please.

I'd say it's a bit of if A then B, not B so not A--whatever the hell that is called.

That's modus tollens, and it's a valid form.

I'd say it's a bit of if A then B, not B so not A--whatever the hell that is called.

He seems to be saying that if credentials are necessary, then credentialed people should be good teachers. Because the teacher he knows is not a good teacher, then credentials must not be necessary.

You mean the contrapositive?

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc only works if he's claiming a correlation between the alcoholism and the "qualifications." Extrapolating a probability from a specific incident without taking base rates into account seems more like what he's doing. That'd be a base rate fallacy.

This makes sense to me, since it would seem a rather odd argument to make that alcohol and teaching qualifications are directly related.

Not at all. You just stroked my ego. ;)
is that what I was stroking? I did pause to wonder!

Without seeing the full wording, it's not easy to be sure, of course. It could be a variant on 'denial of the antecedent'.
the bit in my OP that's in speech marks is directly from the post I'm refering to. I missed out some other stuff because it was directed at another poster and had no bearing on his argument.
The only bit I missed which relates is: "Increasing the number qualified teachers is no guarantee to improve teaching."
The very next sentence is the speech marked stuff in my OP.

You mean the contrapositive?

Contraposition isn't a fallacy either. A contrapositive keeps the truth value of the original construction.

That's modus tollens, and it's a valid form.

Whoops! I meant if A then B, not A so not B.

Or, in this case, perhaps if A, sometimes B, not B, so not A.

My brain hurts.

EDIT: Yeah, I meant the second one. So IF a bird, sometimes red feathers, no red feathers, so not a bird. There we go.

Here's the thing, and I'm not only saying this because it looks like I was wrong...

It doesn't actually matter what the proper fallacy is. Too often in internet debate people fall all over themselves to jump at a fallacy, real or precieved, and be the first to 'call it' like it scores them extra points in the bonus round. The point of fallacies is to illustrate why certain arguments don't work, not to give recent English 1A students a way to wuss out of actual arguments on the net.

You know why the argument doesn't work. Giving it a name isn't really going to make it 'less workable' is it? So don't worry about the rhetorical analysis. If you get a sloppy punch in a boxing match, you don't call it out to the judges for points, you take the opening and knock the guy in the chin.

Here's the thing, and I'm not only saying this because it looks like I was wrong...

It doesn't actually matter what the proper fallacy is. Too often in internet debate people fall all over themselves to jump at a fallacy, real or precieved, and be the first to 'call it' like it scores them extra points in the bonus round. The point of fallacies is to illustrate why certain arguments don't work, not to give recent English 1A students a way to wuss out of actual arguments on the net.

You know why the argument doesn't work. Giving it a name isn't really going to make it 'less workable' is it? So don't worry about the rhetorical analysis. If you get a sloppy punch in a boxing match, you don't call it out to the judges for points, you take the opening and knock the guy in the chin.

Exactly. The reliance on anecdotal evidence was glaringly obvious. Going beyond that wasn't really necessary.

You know why the argument doesn't work. Giving it a name isn't really going to make it 'less workable' is it? So don't worry about the rhetorical analysis. If you get a sloppy punch in a boxing match, you don't call it out to the judges for points, you take the opening and knock the guy in the chin.
Oh, I know this. It was mostly from just wanting to know myself what the correct term would be just to sake my curiosity (it was bugging me not knowing). And the not-so-subtly-hidden desire to come across as a pretentious ass, whoops I mean erudite.
Admit it: we all get secret thrills from being pretentious asses, whoops I mean intellectuals, every now and then.:p

On another forum I belong to, I've gotten into a debate about whether teachers need to be trained or not. I think they do, but some others don't claiming it's enthusiasm that makes you a good teacher not a bit of paper.

Let's follow this same train, only let's use Brain Surgeon instead of teacher.

Now for me, I love enthusiasm. But no matter how enthusiastic you are if you're cutting into my head, you'd better have all the fucking qualifications you need.

One of them, who has no quals, has used the example of a qualified teacher he used to work with who was an alcoholic, who "came to work with booze on their breath multiple mornings. Other co-workers accussed them of sexual harassment. They missed 2 weeks of work because they almost cut off their thumb by punching through a window whilst drunk. Pieces of paper/certificates (i.e. qualifications) do NOT reflect the quality of the person or the work they are capable of producing."

So a licensed Brain Surgeon is also an alcoholic, which impedes his work when he is drunk. Does that mean that his medical training was worthless?

Considering the question has been answered already, I doubt I've done anything. But I wonder how it looks if you substitute a profession that everyone agrees you need training in.

Considering the question has been answered already, I doubt I've done anything. But I wonder how it looks if you substitute a profession that everyone agrees you need training in.
I used that argument earlier but for some reason there's a 'difference' between being a teacher and any other profession that you need training for. Teaching is something you can 'pick up' as you go along and is mostly intuitive. Enthusiasm is all you really need!

no, I don't get it either. I tend to think how I'd react if I were a parent and was faced with my kid's teaching telling me this. "I'm not a trained teacher, but I'm really enthusiastic. And don't worry! I'm sure by the end of the year I will have worked out how to be one!"

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc? Maybe? I'm not sure if that fits, but it's the first thing I thought of. I would wait for someone more knowledgeable to suggest something though.

I agree, though it could be dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid - just because one qualified teacher does something that doesn't mean all of them are like that as there are exceptions so it is a false generalisation from one example.

Isn't there one that translates into "does not follow"? Essentially one conclusion does not follow the other. I'll look it up.
non sequitur.

I used that argument earlier but for some reason there's a 'difference' between being a teacher and any other profession that you need training for. Teaching is something you can 'pick up' as you go along and is mostly intuitive. Enthusiasm is all you really need!

no, I don't get it either. I tend to think how I'd react if I were a parent and was faced with my kid's teaching telling me this. "I'm not a trained teacher, but I'm really enthusiastic. And don't worry! I'm sure by the end of the year I will have worked out how to be one!"

Hah. Teaching, intuitive. This person has probably never taught a lesson on anything in his/her life.

That aside, even if teaching is something oh-so-easy to pick up, you'd also want the teacher to, you know, know the subject matter.

Hah. Teaching, intuitive. This person has probably never taught a lesson on anything in his/her life.

That aside, even if teaching is something oh-so-easy to pick up, you'd also want the teacher to, you know, know the subject matter.
Yeah, pretty much was gonna say that. But less politely.

Hah. Teaching, intuitive. This person has probably never taught a lesson on anything in his/her life.

That aside, even if teaching is something oh-so-easy to pick up, you'd also want the teacher to, you know, know the subject matter.

Nonsense. Whether it's first grade phonics or high school chemistry, the book tells you everything you need to know, and you can learn it as you go! Unless the students ask questions. But teachers should firmly discourage questions. Why do you want to know how or why it happens, nerd? Do the experiment and take your A, stop trying to learn!

Now, I'm off to go intuitively teach some kids to read. I figure if I just make them hold books long enough it should happen... I don't remember how I learned to read, but I bet it was something like that!

You know what annoys me about fallacies? You get so caught up in 'name that fallacy!' that you stop engaging in the actual debate. Then, you 'catch' someone using a fallacy and it's like 'YOU LOSE, MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!'. Really? Is this a fucking contest? Is that how certain people approach discussions?

I like learning new things, seeing new points of view, and if I'm discussing something and I've made some basic errors or assumptions, by all means, point them out so I can shift my approach. But if you're just going to shout "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN" or something else douchey and then attempt to walk away with a pimp swagger, I will wind up and kick you in your respective genitalia.

How you like THEM apples, bitch? My method of 'winning' is just as cool as yours.

-snip-

honey, I'm afraid your confused. This thread is about fallacies, not phalloi. I fear it has nothing to offer you.

honey, I'm afraid your confused. This thread is about fallacies, not phalloi. I fear it has nothing to offer you.

*winds up*

*winds up*

if it helps, I had to go to google and confirm that it wasn't "phalluses"

if it helps, I had to go to google and confirm that it wasn't "phalluses"

I admit to being impressed both at the correct pluralisation and by the fact that you managed to go an entire post without mercileslly butchering the English language.

I admit to being impressed both at the correct pluralisation and by the fact that you managed to go an entire post without mercileslly butchering the English language.

so am I...

Although in fairness, my grammar is NOT bad. My spelling, however, resembles that of a retarded sixth grader on acid.

so am I...

Although in fairness, my grammar is NOT bad. My spelling, however, resembles that of a retarded sixth grader on acid.

It's unfair that you took away the joy I would have received had I gotten the chance to make that statement first.

It's unfair that you took away the joy I would have received had I gotten the chance to make that statement first.

<----- sadist

<----- sadist

^
|
|
|
|

Ass.