Barry’s latest post at UD has the title Biology Students Score Below Religion and Classics Students on Test of Critical Thinking. Unsurprisingly, it’s Barry who actually flunks the critical thinking test.
(Click graph for a bigger version)
His attempt at interpreting the graph above:
One wonders why biology students do so poorly while classics and religion students do so well. One hypothesis: classics and religion students learn critical thinking skills while biology students are taught to parrot the central dogma. The chart is from a study of which undergraduate majors correlated most highly with success on the LSAT. See here.
I note that my own undergraduate major (accounting) also faired [sic] poorly. It seems my LSAT score (97th percentile) was an exception if this chart is any indication.
Barry doesn’t even consider the following possibilities:
1. Perhaps the best biology students don’t want to go to law school, so they don’t take the LSAT.
2. Perhaps the best religion and classics students are more likely to pursue law degrees.
3. Perhaps biology is a harder major than religion or classics, which is why biology students do better on the LSAT relative to their GPAs.
He doesn’t look into average GPA data for the various majors. He doesn’t consider selection effects at all.
Instead, he barges blindly ahead, seizing on an interpretation that best suits his propagandistic purposes, yet one that is undermined by the graph.
Critical thinking: Ur doing it rong, Barry. But by all means, keep posting!
Gee, I wonder how religion students do on the MCATs. I wonder how well they work through empiricism, you know, science.
LSATs are especially for testing formal and rhetorical logic, not for thinking through empiricism. They also don’t test for the actual knowledge needed to do sciences, such as biology. But then, Barry’s shown hardly any interest in empiricism or biologic knowledge, so I’m sure those deficits for a scientist on a test like LSAT hardly disturbs him.
Glen Davidson
I wonder if he’ll drive by and suggest you retain counsel?
Previously I’ve had polite email exchanges with Barry but I think perhaps being on the losing side of history has taken its toll.
Richardthughes,
I had a polite discussion with him on a radio show he guest-hosted. There seems to be something about the Internet that brings out the worst in him.
Note that both mechanical and electrical engineers are ranked below the biologists (specialized), and recall that a fair number of UD regulars are engineers. I wonder if that inference was picked up by Barry’s readers?
Barry shows up:
“Thanks for the comments. They all raise fair points.”
‘nother slice of humble pie?
Then, Robert Byers:
“I think these tests miss bigger reasons about who scores what.
i doubt its about critical thinking but likely sharper kids from sharper circles tend to aim at classic/religion stuff.
People hardly ever question that which they have no reason to question.
Critical thinking is done by those already critical from the circles they grow up in.”
Byers just doesn’t live in the same reality as me. YEC = overturned BY critical thinking, not the vanguard OF critical thinking.
Richardthughes:
He can’t throw his usual tantrum or ban people, because just a few days ago he was praising vjtorley for publicly admitting his mistakes regarding fixation:
Let’s see whether he’ll follow Vincent’s example and post a retraction.
I showed the graphic to my 17-year-old daughter, who hopes to be an architect.
Her reaction:
“Wait a sec. These are students who want to go to Law School? It’s a self-selecting sample!” [look of utter bemusement]
[/proud father]
Truly, these guys would fail High School.
I think there is a possible world where Byers is an invented persona by someone with a twisted but fascinating sense of humor. However, I won’t say that this is the actual world, because I think to do so would break the posting rules for the site.
Geez, Keith, more than 2000 posts at a completely different discussion board! You’ve really made a second career of this stuff. I’m glad you’ve found a calling in your retirement (I’m assuming you don’t have a full time job too!).
Bruce,
We discussed that possible world here. 🙂
Bruce,
Actually, I have both a job and a life beyond the Internet. 🙂
That 2000+ number isn’t as bad as it sounds. Those are spread over eight years, for an average of less than one comment a day.
Except for some bursts at UD (most of which were abruptly terminated by bannings), my TSZ “posting career” has been my most prolific.
DNA_Jock:
A smart young woman.
Meanwhile, still no retraction from Barry, just a tepid acknowledgement of “fair points” raised by his critics.
Mark Frank at UD:
Yup, I read and enjoyed your reply, but I figured, it’s a different thread, so maybe I can get away with re-using the same joke? Apparently not.
So you only post at two boards while holding down a full time job and a life in the real world? I suppose that is still a pretty impressive tally (no idea how to insert smilies so imagine one here).
Bruce,
I thought it was a good joke! I wanted people to see your ‘Roberta’ comment and my response.
And Robert’s good-natured response to my tweaking.
Re smilies, just type them in ASCII and the board software will do the rest after you click ‘Post Comment’.
I’m between projects right now, so I’ve got some extra time for posting. 🙂
People see what they want to see, and we might hypothesize that BA, — along with the rest of hie idiots at UD — has especially effective training at seeing what he wants to see. Not for them the scientific world of actually examining all the evidence before jumping to a favorite conclusion.
He has no evidence that suggests classics/religious studies students are taught “critical thinking skills” nor that biology students “parrot central dogma”. Nor for that matter, that either of those modes of thinking, if they could be shown to be typical of religious vs science students, would be a key factor in explaining LSAT scores.
But never let it be said that BA’s lack of evidence stopped him from trying to stick a knife into the sides of the “Darwinists”. There is no sign that it’s about actual truth for him, but just about what he sees that he thinks he can use to hurt his opponents.
Still no retraction from Barry. I guess retractions are for people “of integrity and strong character”, like vjtorley, and Barry doesn’t include himself in that group.
Can’t say that I disagree.
Like Salvador, noting that some “good points” have been made and then carrying on regardless seems to be the best you can expect.