|
|
|
|
|
|
by alexashka
3191 days ago
|
|
|
Regarding teachers - it's up to the person making extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence [0]. Even at a glance however - how many grade 1-5 teachers are on the internet at all, let alone best. It's pure statistics to know the claim is highly unlikely. Thinking the best educators are on the internet is a lot like Americans who believe their country is the best country - it's an extreme form of short-sightedness. See how that fits so nicely into the rest of my post? Regarding people becoming less short-sighted - I'd say next to nothing has changed. From the point of view of your life now versus 500 years ago, it's great. From the point of view of this planet and it's people as a whole - how many people did we kill among ourselves again in the last 100 years alone? Didn't we nearly blow up the planet less than 50 years ago? We're far more monkey-brained than people who are smart and only associate with at least somewhat smart people like to believe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot |
|
|
You should be telling yourself this, not me.
The other person claimed all the good teachers were online. Yes, we should ask for evidence for this. But did your original comment do that? It didn't.
Instead it made a claim that the good teachers are not on the internet. This is also making a spefific, very broad claim, which we should also ask for evidence for. Which is what I did.
It seems you're under the mistaken impression that the "neutral" stance, that doesn't require evidence is a claim like the one you made, that (if the original person's claim was X) "not X" is true. But the only stance that doesn't require evidence backing it up is the agnostic one of "I don't know where the best teachers are these days".