From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 08:59:53 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1SDxqsx006610 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1SDxjrd058897 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 11939 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 13:59:45 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 13:59:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 15615 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 13:59:45 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 13:59:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 26469 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 13:59:29 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 13:59:29 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3535524 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:29 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 26793 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 13:59:23 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 13:59:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 10881 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 13:59:22 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 13:59:22 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1SDxM3c006575 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1SDxMvL006574 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:22 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702281359.l1SDxMvL006574@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:22 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER #1 STATISTICS To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS, UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2679/Wed Feb 28 06:58:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 490 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: POSITION PAPER #1 STATISTICS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here are the grading statistics on Position Paper #1: CSE 484: CSE/PHI 584: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Average 18.7 pts = C+ 20.2 pts = B- Distribution: A 5 5 A- 0 1 B+ 4 1 B 0 1 B- 1 5 C+ 0 0 C 6 8 C- 3 n/a D+ 2 n/a D 2 1 F 0 0 From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 16:37:47 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1SLblXv028241 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1SLbdKI093359 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21661 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 21:37:39 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 21:37:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 21600 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 21:37:38 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 21:37:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 19635 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 21:37:24 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 21:37:24 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3550989 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:24 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 23667 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 21:37:23 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 21:37:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17920 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 21:37:23 -0000 Received: from pollux.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.35.2) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 21:37:23 -0000 Received: from pollux.cse.buffalo.edu (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pollux.cse.buffalo.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l1SLbMxX009049 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by pollux.cse.buffalo.edu (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id l1SLbM6p009047; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:22 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UB-Relay: (pollux.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:22 -0500 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Albert Goldfain Subject: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (pollux.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2679/Wed Feb 28 06:58:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2051 A student asked me why the hidden premise grading totaled 9 points and the grading for premise 1 premise 2 and the conclusion were 6 points each. The easy answer is that you had to do three things for the hidden premise (identify, say (dis)agree, and give reasons why you (dis)agreed) whereas the other parts you had to do two things (say (dis)agree, give reasons why). It may seem somewhat harsh to take off 9 points if you completely missed the hidden premise...so here is one justification for such a scheme (Dr. Rapaport has yet another one)...and, of course, I will give it in argument form :) P1. An average student could state whether or not they agreed or disagreed with each of the premises and conclusion (probably even before taking this course). This was worth 9 points. P2. An average student could give reasons *why* they agreed or disagreed with each of the premises and conclusion (probably after taking the first part of this course and doing the required readings). This was worth 9 points. P3. In Rapaport's grading scheme, a "C" means average. C1. The total points for stating (dis)agreement and giving reasons why was 18...which gave this average student a C. P4. Finding a hidden premise does each of the following: (1) shows the student recognizes the argument is invalid, (2) shows the student knows how to augment the argument so that it can be made valid, (3) gives constructive feedback to the argument author (although the dean of eng was fictional, this is an important skill in philosophy)...see rapaport's comment on "joining in a dialogue". P5. Finding hidden premises was explicitly covered in both the Mon & Wed recitations. P6. The instructions for PP1 explicitly asked the students to see if there was a missing link (i.e., a missing premise). C2. Therefore, the identification and analysis of the hidden premise should be worth more than Premise 1 Premise 2 or Conclusion. Remember though, the lowest of your PP grades will be dropped...don't dwell too long on your PP1 grade...move on to PP2! Albert From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 18:48:55 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1SNmtYB001956 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:48:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1SNmoOI000246 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22079 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 23:48:50 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 23:48:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 22019 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 23:48:50 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 23:48:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 26178 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 23:48:39 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 23:48:39 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3557083 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:48:39 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 20700 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2007 23:38:39 -0000 Received: from mailscan5.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.137) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Feb 2007 23:38:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 22782 invoked by uid 60001); 28 Feb 2007 23:38:39 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 70.104.60.127 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1172705919.45e6127f42842@mail2.buffalo.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:38:39 -0500 Reply-To: Vince Spinelli Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Vince Spinelli Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 Comments: To: ag33@CSE.BUFFALO.EDU To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (defer.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2679/Wed Feb 28 06:58:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 3614 Mr. Goldfain, I believe your reasoning, while it makes sense, neglects to observe what is likely the most troublesome issue for some students: The 'hidden premise' was not stated as a necessity within the assignment. Excerpt from assignment: --> "If you think that it doesn't follow, is there some (interesting, non­trivial)missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the premises and conclusion)that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree with that missing premise? Why (not)?)" That being said, a student who believed the original argument to follow would find no need to search for a hidden premise. In an alternate case, a student who thought 'that it doesn't follow' (as triggered in the excerpt above) would only be responsible for pointing out some 'interesting, nontrivial' missing premise. -- 'interesting' and 'nontrivial' are subjective terms. Personally, I find the premise stated within the grading rubic email to be wholly trivial and non-interesting. I state such not for the purpose of making a play on words but, honestly, because it didn't seem to make any sort of difference to me. I took it much in the same vein as someone arguing that 'automobiles are a large part of atmospheric pollution' and then finding out later that 'the person was actually including not just cars but motorcycles and pickup trucks'... I was left wondering, "Why did that even need to be mentioned at all?" Furthermore, students should not be expected to pull a (to coin a term used by Dr. Rapaport) Harry Potter when it comes to assignments. Were one trifling enough, they would likely find a never ending number of hidden premises in any argument. In fact, one might even argue that every word (whether written or spoken) can be a mini-premise in and of itself (the meaning of such word, its interpretation in context, etc). But I've droned on long enough. A more effective means of soliciting a student's review of such a hidden premise would be to state something to the effect of... "[regardless of whether you agree or disagree]There is an implied {or use 'hidden'} premise within this argument. Identify it, and state whether you agree or disagree with it. Also, does this implied premise add any weight to the writer's argument?" Then, so as to avoid having to hint at what the hidden premise may be, the grader would be subject to accept any well documented (ie. well argued, well stated, 'can show reasonable logic that lead to') purposed hidden premise(s), and their attached literary work product. Of course, we could banter on and on with regard to this, but, at some point, one must realize a 'fact' (whether it be philosophically 'true' or not, be damned; life wiggles within boundaries for a reason). Lastly, rest assured I've no personal bias either way; I haven't picked up my paper yet, nor do I really care what my grade was (provided, I hope, I passed). I'm picking up a lot with regard to 'how mankind thinks' and the products of 'human intellectual evolution' in this class, and I'm enjoying the experience. None the less, if 'lines in the sand' are to be drawn with a grading rubic, then similar 'lines' should be drawn such that the student may hold the grader accountable to a particular standard, prior to the student submitting the paper for grading. Regards, Vince. --------------------------------------- Vince Spinelli University at Buffalo: EE --------------------------------------- "Kind of off his mental reservation." - ancient cowboy wisdom. --------------------------------------- Vince@SpinelliCreations.com [vfs@buffalo.edu / vfs@eng.buffalo.edu] From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 19:07:02 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l21072ZS002462 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:07:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2106vUp001069 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:06:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21700 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 00:06:57 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 00:06:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 21596 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 00:06:57 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 00:06:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 2243 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 00:06:47 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 00:06:47 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3557549 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:06:47 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 6068 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 00:06:47 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 00:06:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 1853 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 00:06:46 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.1) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 00:06:46 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2106jeR023751; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:06:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2106jKn023750; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:06:45 -0500 (EST) References: <60068.70.104.60.127.1172704414.squirrel@spinellicreations.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:06:45 -0500 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Albert Goldfain Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 Comments: To: Vince Spinelli To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: <60068.70.104.60.127.1172704414.squirrel@spinellicreations.com> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2679/Wed Feb 28 06:58:10 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU id l21072ZS002462 Status: R Content-Length: 5360 Some replies below: > Mr. Goldfain, > > I believe your reasoning, while it makes sense, neglects to observe what > is likely the most troublesome issue for some students: > > The 'hidden premise' was not stated as a necessity within the assignment. > > Excerpt from assignment: --> "If you think that it doesn't follow, is > there some (interesting, non­trivial) > missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the premises and conclusion) > that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree with that missing premise? > Why (not)?)" > > That being said, a student who believed the original argument to follow > would find no need to search for a hidden premise. But the argument *was* invalid...so a student who did not see the need to search for a hidden premise would have lost the points precisely for this reason. > In an alternate case, a student who thought 'that it doesn't follow' (as > triggered in the excerpt above) would only be responsible for pointing out > some 'interesting, nontrivial' missing premise. > > -- 'interesting' and 'nontrivial' are subjective terms. > > Personally, I find the premise stated within the grading rubic email to be > wholly trivial and non-interesting. I state such not for the purpose of > making a play on words but, honestly, because it didn't seem to make any > sort of difference to me. I took it much in the same vein as someone > arguing that 'automobiles are a large part of atmospheric pollution' and > then finding out later that 'the person was actually including not just > cars but motorcycles and pickup trucks'... I was left wondering, "Why did > that even need to be mentioned at all?" The precision of logical argumentation requires that we explicitly state what some may consider trivial and non-interesting things. I don't think this particular hidden premise was *trivial* or *non-interesting*, but regardless a good argument MUST state it. > Furthermore, students should not be expected to pull a (to coin a term > used by Dr. Rapaport) Harry Potter when it comes to assignments. When I was demonstrating hidden premise identification in recitation, no one looked at me as if I were performing magic...and very few people asked me to explain what I had done. > Were one trifling enough, they would likely find a never ending number of > hidden premises in any argument. In fact, one might even argue that every > word (whether written or spoken) can be a mini-premise in and of itself > (the meaning of such word, its interpretation in context, etc). But I've > droned on long enough. You are right in saying that there are an infinite number of hidden premises that could make the argument valid...but as I said in recitation, we are after the missing-link that you actually believe the author is leaving out of the argument! So, as I said, while including the conclusion among the premises would always work as a hidden premise, it is not an informative one and does not illustrate the technique of argument analysis described in the instructions (and the Martinich text). > A more effective means of soliciting a student's review of such a hidden > premise would be to state something to the effect of... "[regardless of > whether you agree or disagree]There is an implied {or use 'hidden'} > premise within this argument. Identify it, and state whether you agree or > disagree with it. Also, does this implied premise add any weight to the > writer's argument?" This would be another way of putting it...yes...but it gives away that there *is* a hidden premise. If you are reading some philosopher's argument in a journal you won't get this information about hidden premises. > Then, so as to avoid having to hint at what the hidden premise may be, the > grader would be subject to accept any well documented (ie. well argued, > well stated, 'can show reasonable logic that lead to') purposed hidden > premise(s), and their attached literary work product. > > Of course, we could banter on and on with regard to this, but, at some > point, one must realize a 'fact' (whether it be philosophically 'true' or > not, be damned; life wiggles within boundaries for a reason). Lastly, > rest assured I've no personal bias either way; I haven't picked up my > paper yet, nor do I really care what my grade was (provided, I hope, I > passed). I'm picking up a lot with regard to 'how mankind thinks' and the > products of 'human intellectual evolution' in this class, and I'm enjoying > the experience. None the less, if 'lines in the sand' are to be drawn > with a grading rubic, then similar 'lines' should be drawn such that the > student may hold the grader accountable to a particular standard, prior to > the student submitting the paper for grading. Dr. Rapaport will post the grading rubric for PP2...if you ever feel that you have been graded improperly (even with a public grading rubric) you are free to come see one of us. > Regards, > Vince. > > --------------------------------------- > Vince Spinelli > University at Buffalo: EE > --------------------------------------- > "Kind of off his mental reservation." > - ancient cowboy wisdom. > --------------------------------------- > Vince@SpinelliCreations.com > [vfs@buffalo.edu / vfs@eng.buffalo.edu] > > > > ------------------------------------------ > SC Secure Webmail: Powered by SquirrelMail > Albert From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 21:08:52 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2128pxv005615 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2128lUw006577 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4959 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 02:08:47 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 02:08:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 2136 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 02:08:47 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 02:08:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 9376 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 02:08:46 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 02:08:46 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3558991 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:08:45 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 8918 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 02:08:45 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 02:08:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 16637 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 02:08:44 -0000 Received: from 68-168-91-191.kntnny.adelphia.net (HELO ?192.168.2.101?) (68.168.91.191) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 02:08:44 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) References: <1172705919.45e6127f42842@mail2.buffalo.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-UB-Relay: (68-168-91-191.kntnny.adelphia.net) X-PM-Spam-Prob: XX: 22% Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:08:41 -0500 Reply-To: Kyle Jacobs Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Kyle Jacobs Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: <1172705919.45e6127f42842@mail2.buffalo.edu> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (68-168-91-191.kntnny.adelphia.net) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2681/Wed Feb 28 19:25:37 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4172 Here here! I don't mind a "higher bar" as far as standards go, but I wholeheartedly object to camouflaging the damned thing is patently unacceptable. Loosing 33% of the entire paper's worth on something that the original specification DIDN'T SPECIFY is ridiculous to say the least. On Feb 28, 2007, at 6:38 PM, Vince Spinelli wrote: > Mr. Goldfain, > > I believe your reasoning, while it makes sense, neglects to observe > what > is likely the most troublesome issue for some students: > > The 'hidden premise' was not stated as a necessity within the > assignment. > > Excerpt from assignment: --> "If you think that it doesn't follow, is > there some (interesting, non trivial)missing premise (i.e., a "missing > link" between the premises and conclusion)that would make it > follow? (If > so, do you agree with that missing premise? Why (not)?)" > > That being said, a student who believed the original argument to > follow > would find no need to search for a hidden premise. > > In an alternate case, a student who thought 'that it doesn't > follow' (as > triggered in the excerpt above) would only be responsible for pointing > out some 'interesting, nontrivial' missing premise. > > -- 'interesting' and 'nontrivial' are subjective terms. > > Personally, I find the premise stated within the grading rubic > email to > be wholly trivial and non-interesting. I state such not for the > purpose > of making a play on words but, honestly, because it didn't seem to > make > any sort of difference to me. I took it much in the same vein as > someone arguing that 'automobiles are a large part of atmospheric > pollution' and then finding out later that 'the person was actually > including not just cars but motorcycles and pickup trucks'... I was > left > wondering, "Why did that even need to be mentioned at all?" > > Furthermore, students should not be expected to pull a (to coin a term > used by Dr. Rapaport) Harry Potter when it comes to assignments. > > Were one trifling enough, they would likely find a never ending number > of hidden premises in any argument. In fact, one might even argue > that > every word (whether written or spoken) can be a mini-premise in and of > itself (the meaning of such word, its interpretation in context, etc). > But I've droned on long enough. > > A more effective means of soliciting a student's review of such a > hidden > premise would be to state something to the effect of... > "[regardless of > whether you agree or disagree]There is an implied {or use 'hidden'} > premise within this argument. Identify it, and state whether you > agree > or disagree with it. Also, does this implied premise add any > weight to > the writer's argument?" > > Then, so as to avoid having to hint at what the hidden premise may be, > the grader would be subject to accept any well documented (ie. well > argued, well stated, 'can show reasonable logic that lead to') > purposed > hidden premise(s), and their attached literary work product. > > Of course, we could banter on and on with regard to this, but, at some > point, one must realize a 'fact' (whether it be philosophically 'true' > or not, be damned; life wiggles within boundaries for a reason). > Lastly, rest assured I've no personal bias either way; I haven't > picked > up my paper yet, nor do I really care what my grade was (provided, I > hope, I passed). I'm picking up a lot with regard to 'how mankind > thinks' and the products of 'human intellectual evolution' in this > class, and I'm enjoying the experience. None the less, if 'lines > in the > sand' are to be drawn with a grading rubic, then similar 'lines' > should > be drawn such that the student may hold the grader accountable to a > particular standard, prior to the student submitting the paper for > grading. > > Regards, > Vince. > > --------------------------------------- > Vince Spinelli > University at Buffalo: EE > --------------------------------------- > "Kind of off his mental reservation." > - ancient cowboy wisdom. > --------------------------------------- > Vince@SpinelliCreations.com > [vfs@buffalo.edu / vfs@eng.buffalo.edu] > > From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Feb 28 23:48:06 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l214m5D2008960 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:48:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l214lvnc012010 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:47:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21639 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 04:47:57 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 04:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 21625 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 04:47:57 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 04:47:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 3634 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 04:47:46 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 04:47:46 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3563353 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:47:46 -0500 Delivered-To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 28147 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 04:47:46 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 04:47:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 18499 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2007 04:47:45 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.1) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 1 Mar 2007 04:47:45 -0000 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l214liH7010221; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l214liAp010220; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:47:44 -0500 (EST) References: <1172705919.45e6127f42842@mail2.buffalo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:47:44 -0500 Reply-To: Albert Goldfain Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: Albert Goldfain Subject: Re: Hidden premise weighting on PP1 Comments: To: Kyle Jacobs To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (hadar.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2686/Wed Feb 28 22:53:49 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 684 > Here here! > > I don't mind a "higher bar" as far as standards go, but I > wholeheartedly object to camouflaging the damned thing is patently > unacceptable. "camouflage" is not on for PP2...grading rubric is out > Loosing 33% of the entire paper's worth on something that the > original specification DIDN'T SPECIFY is ridiculous to say the least. Specification from http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/pospaper1.html * If you think that it doesn't follow, is there some (interesting, non-trivial) missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the premises and conclusion) that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree with that missing premise? Why (not)?)