Let's talk today about "burden of proof" re: claims, because I see much of my advocacy misconstrued.
Let's look at two claims:
* Online schooling is harmful to kids
* Online schooling is beneficial to kids
/1
Let's look at two claims:
* Online schooling is harmful to kids
* Online schooling is beneficial to kids
/1
The first claim requires evidence that, in terms of net outcomes, online schooling causes more harm than not online schooling.
Most of the evidence that I present is evidence *against this claim*, to counter the everpresent narrative of selected publications that support it.
/2
Most of the evidence that I present is evidence *against this claim*, to counter the everpresent narrative of selected publications that support it.
/2
As well, I criticize the evidence itself as it doesn't exactly establish harm, causative harm, or in many cases, even compare online schooled kids to in person school kids.
Challenging the evidence is challenging **that claim**, that "online schooling is harmful to kids"
/3
Challenging the evidence is challenging **that claim**, that "online schooling is harmful to kids"
/3
On the other hand, proving the claim "online schooling is beneficial for kids" similarly requires evidence that separates online schooled kids from remote schooled kids, and evidence that shows net benefit.
/4
/4
Many of the criticisms I have of the former claims evidence apply to the latter claims evidence.
For example, that suicide presentations declined in the first 15 months of the pandemic certainly leans in the direction of "less harm" but is not good evidence of less harm.
/5
For example, that suicide presentations declined in the first 15 months of the pandemic certainly leans in the direction of "less harm" but is not good evidence of less harm.
/5
I like to refer to evidence like this as "evidence you would see if there was less harm" but not "evidence for less harm". It's too confounded and has all of the same separation problems as the claims of harm.
/6
/6
So remember, when I challenge evidence of an assertion, I am NOT claiming the opposite. That's not how logic or evidence or science works.
/7
/7
Ie) if someone says the strange footprint is proof of an alien and therefore aliens exist amongst us, me criticizing the evidence is going against it as proof of that claim, not proof that aliens don't exist amongst us.
/8
/8
It is so frustrating to have people take my threads and then (ignorantly, either innocently or not) loudly yell at me "oh so you're saying the kids are ok?!?"
By posting this thread, I will never reply to such a comment again.
By posting this thread, I will never reply to such a comment again.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
