On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:07:41 PM UTC-5, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 12:10 am, Rustom Mody wrote:
[...] > > Einstein: If you can't explain something to a six-year- > > old, you really don't understand it yourself. > > > > [...] > > Think about it: it simply is nonsense. If this six year old > test was valid, that would imply that all fields of > knowledge are capable of being taught to the average six > year old. Yeah good luck with that. Again, as was the case with your Toupee Fallacy a few days ago, you've got it all wrong. The implication of that quote was _not_ that six year olds are the "final arbiters of truth". LOL. The implication is that explaining anything to a six year old is not an easy task. Therefore, a teacher who lacks a deep understanding of the subject matter could never hope to properly educate a six year old student. And if you don't believe me, consider the lesson of this famous quip: "The blind leading the blind". ;-) > But even if we accept this, it doesn't contradict the > Mencken quote. I can explain the birds and the bees to a > six year, at a level that they will understand. That > doesn't mean that (1) I am an expert on human reproduction; Since when is a biology degree prerequisite to informing a six year old that babies are the product of "mommies and daddies"? (at least "historically speaking") Of course, in the not-so-distant-future, babies will be the product of "science and farming". Hmm. Which, incidentally, is a wonderful segue into the subject of evolution! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
