[syops]

You don’t know what an ad hominem is. You are incorrectly applying the definition. It is not an argumentative fallacy to ask the basis by which a person’s assertions have been formed. You’ve made lots of claims about teaching but clearly you have no experience to back it up and (this is important) you have not provided any citations to back up your assertions.

People have to make judgments with imperfect knowledge. It’s reasonable to discount the unsubstantiated opinions of someone with no experience with the topic at hand.

It should at least be interesting to you that it was obvious from your comments that you don’t have experience teaching mathematics in the classroom. Why was that so obvious to those of us with that experience? The previous question is rhetorical.

[TameAntelope]

I didn't say it was an argumentative fallacy to ask the basis by which a person's assertions have been formed, I said it was a fallacy to say a person's assertions are wrong because of some aspect of themselves, which is what's taken place here by insisting I must be a calculus teacher in order to challenge your assertion that IQ is the primary source of the problems your students have with learning in your classrooms.

What is interesting to me is the fact that you retreated to this ad hominem the moment you were challenged, because it tells me you don't have any real explanation for how you eliminated other possible causes for your students sometimes performing poorly.

You'd prefer to live in a world where your experience has meaning than to live in a world where your experience is not valuable when faced with this question, which is completely human of you, but ultimately not useful in this discussion, due to its anecdotal and un-rigorously collected nature.

I can't stop you from throwing this New Yorker article, and the other works of Dr. Harden, in the face of your colleagues, but I can hopefully dissuade others from making the same logical mistakes you're making. I believe I've succeeded at that, by clearly highlighting the carelessness of what you've said here.

Ultimately, what I find most fascinating is, in real time, you've demonstrated how right Dr. Turkheimer ultimately is and how dangerous this research can be when put in the hands of folks who don't understand its delicacy or even the basic facts surrounding these arguments.

I'm grateful for your engagement with me, it's been helpful to work through this with someone like you, but I'll commit to the thing you tried and failed to do; I'm no longer going to reply to your comments in this thread. You're clearly (and I mean clearly) wrapped up in a need to think of some of your students as too dumb to learn calculus, and there's literally nothing I or anyone else here can say that would convince you otherwise, and at this point I've done my part in preventing others from thinking that your insight is useful or helpful in this conversation.

Have a great rest of your evening!

[syops]

I committed to not responding to you in a different thread. I did not commit to not responding to you in all threads. The teacher in me forced me to try to explain to you why your use of ad hominem was incorrect. My previous response had nothing to do with what was being discussed as such. Your conclusions have not been logically valid.

Here’s an example:

… I must be a calculus teacher in order to challenge your assertion that IQ is the primary source of the problems your students have with learning in your classrooms..

No one has said any of these things and no one has implied any of these things. I never said or implied that IQ is the primary source of anything. No one believes that you must be a teacher of calculus to be right. What people have wondered is if you are a teacher because some of your statements seem to the the type of statements only a non teacher would make.