This has to be a joke...

Ground school most certainly does not involve a lot of math, it's not like there's any calculus or algebra involved... it's basic arithmetic. Furthermore it's categorically false that you need to pass ground school before you're allowed to fly.

Are you just making things up?

>A teacher that cannot explain how calculus works cannot teach it to anybody.

This is a strawman argument, I never made anything that could even remotely be interpreted as this.

>I've seen too many coders using bubble sort because they don't know enough to look for a better algorithm.

This is committing a very basic logical fallacy. The fact that someone who is incompetent likely can't pass a test is not the same claim as someone who can't pass a test is likely incompetent.

Hopefully you are able to identify this logical mistake that you're committing and revise your position accordingly.

▲

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> categorically false

Google sez: "The U.S. Air Force strictly requires you to complete and pass formal academic ground training before you ever touch the controls of an aircraft"

They're not going to risk an aircraft on an incompetent student.

> A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon

I stand by my statement.

> logical fallacy

A implies B meaning B implies A is indeed a logical fallacy. But that does not rule out B implies A. A and B can be strongly related to each other.

▲

Maxatar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So you are making things up... thanks for confirming that. While I appreciate that you reviewed what Google "sez"... you have misunderstood the relevant context which is that the U.S. Air Force also requires that you complete Initial Flight Training (IFT) before you start the Air Force's own formal training program (UPT). In IFT you will not be required to pass ground school before you get to fly.

Furthermore, even if the Air Force did not require IFT before UPT (the Air Force's own training program), you've completely changed the nature of your argument. I have no dispute about whether the Air Force may or may not have stricter requirements for their pilots, but that wasn't your argument.

>I stand by my statement.

You've proudly planted your flag on a point nobody was contesting, which is a strange hill to celebrate on but you do you.

>But that does not rule out B implies A. A and B can be strongly related to each other.

Discussing a topic with someone who not only uses logically fallacies as justification for their argument but brazenly doubles down on said fallacy is a good sign that this is probably not a good discussion to continue spending time on. Like am I supposed to simply accept your logical fallacy and take on the burden of disproving every claim you can dream up simply because you've asserted it isn't logically impossible? The person making the claim carries the burden of supporting it, and "they're strongly related" is something you have to actually show, not something I'm obligated to refute on your behalf.

▲

WalterBright 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ground school comes first at IFT https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/usaf_ift.html

Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree.

	▲	Maxatar 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>Ground school comes first at IFT There is no singular "IFT"... you happened to find one IFT among hundreds across the U.S. that has such a syllabus, great... but it does not come first as requirement mandated either by law/regulation or convention. Here is the syllabus for a different FAA Part 61 and 141 approved IFT program that uses an integrated approach with the following quote: "Each Module contains both a flight and ground lesson. This presents an integrated flight training process and will promote easier learning and a more efficient flight training program" https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ad1e29b372b96bedc6b1... >Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree. This is false, not all trees are made of wood (palm trees) and there are natural sources of wood that don't come from trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_plant But of course... instead of just admitting you were wrong to make that logical fallacy... free to continue doubling down and making things up.

▲

jibal 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

In addition to affirmation of the consequent he's also employing attacking a strawman, petitio principii, faulty analogy, and goalpost shifting, at least. His followup example "Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree." is hilarious. No doubt there are numerous other examples completely unrelated to coders and whiteboard tests where A implies B and B is highly correlated to A, but their existence tells us nothing about coders and whiteboard tests and doesn't justify a blatant fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.

Here's something to consider: just because someone is good at writing compilers or designing a language, that doesn't entail anything about the quality of their arguments.

▲

WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> it's not like there's any calculus or algebra involved

There certainly is when you're navigating.

Some of the more advanced math is boiled down to specialized slide rules, though these days they'd use a computers.

For example, the fuel consumption rate vs range is not a linear relationship, because burning fuel lightens the airplane and so it can go faster/further.