tpia:

honestly, its very frustrating having any kind of discussion wirth iliterates like you.

RICHYBLACK was the one who has a problem with wikipedia because it doesnt reflect his worldview!!!!!!!!

If Iweala's life story from her grandfather's marriage to her great grandkid's favorite kind of spoon, isnt on wikipedia, how is that my problem?

geez- make una no tire me with una unique brand of stupidity, abeg!!!

Please go chat with fellow idiots like yourself jo!!!

tpia:

honestly, its very frustrating having any kind of discussion with illiterates like you.

RICHYBLACK was the one who has a problem with wikipedia because it doesnt reflect his worldview!!!!!!!!He's the one loosing sleep over wiki entries! And spending his days correcting wiki in an attempt to damage the site's credibility!!!

If Iweala's life story from her grandfather's marriage to her great grandkid's favorite kind of spoon, isnt on wikipedia or the internet, how is that my problem? I provided multiple leads on this thread for you bad belles to look into these things that are worrying you.

geez- make una no tire me with una unique brand of stupidity, abeg!!!

Please go chat with fellow idiots like yourself jo!!!

bawomolo:

calling people, illiterates pigheaded blah blah blah is insulting.  We get it already, you are smarter than all of us.

there is no mention of her being part of a faculty in her World bank profile. Except she is concurrently teaching somewhere while being MD of the World Bank, there is no need to ask for updates or "legitimate" sources.  I guess the World Bank isn't a legitimate or sensible source to you.

must_a_far:

una still dey waste una internet saliva on top this woman/lady/girl

debosky:

This thread is absolutely hilarious.  

Personally, I feel Richy and Tpia are essentially doing the same thing - employing a Socratic method of teaching - asking questions!  

Richy's question was 'when did she become a prof'?

Tpia's response was 'can you prove she never became a prof'?

Biina has employed the traditional Pedagogic method of providing an answer to the question, to which Tpia has given a typically Socratic retort of 'have you investigated all types of professorships'?

Granted, in that initial post of Tpia's, she did engage in some Pedagogy by asserting that this is simply 'bad belle'.  

I don't think there are any illiterates here, people are simply viewing things from different perspectives, all of which have some merit in themselves.

Two basic reasoning styles have been employed.

1. No evidence has been shown indicating professorship, hence she cannot be a professor. (lack of evidence leading to conclusion)

2. No evidence has been shown indicating non-professorship, hence she can in all likelihood be a professor, especially given that she has the requisite qualification (i.e. PhD) required to hold this position. (conclusion/postulate stands till contrary evidence is provided)

Different learning styles, different reasoning methods - the human mind is just wonderful. Please pardon my digression, I just enjoyed looking at the way each person approached their argument.

RichyBlacK:

So, the statement "Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is a bishop" must be discarded as false if there is no evidence that she is a bishop, and not entertained as true simply because there is no evidence that she is not a bishop!

Others are:
1. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is an Olympic gold medalist
2. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has traveled to space
etc.

debosky:

I disagree. Tpia's argument has merit because, unlike your gold medalist and space travel allegories, she has the requisite qualification - the PhD to hold a professorial office. Iweala is not on record as being on any national team contingent that would qualify her to win a medal, neither is there any evidence that she has undergone space travel training to even qualify her for space travel.

In that regard, there is some (albeit insufficient) basis to say that she could be a professor, while she could not be a bishop because bishops are men and she is NOT a man.

Tpia is not asserting that lack of evidence means she is definitely a professor. She is simply employing Socratic teaching by requesting that you search deeper or question further instead of stopping at the 'publicly available' biographies.

RichyBlacK:

The statement in red-bold does not help your case if you entertain a negative proof type argument.

Let me demonstrate by asking the same kind of question tpia would ask: Is there any evidence that she has [size=14pt]not[/size] undergone training for space travel?

debosky:

I do not believe that is the type of question Tpia is asking. Her first post (after the initial 'bad belle' comment) is clearly stating her PhD qualifications, which is the pre-requisite for being a professor.

You have no such pre-requisite evidence in the case of space flight, except that she is a human being or she has been to the US, but even that is not relevant since Laika the first space traveller was a dog in Russia. 

Simply put, two basic elements are required to become a professor:

1. PhD

2. The actual appointment

If Ngozi has #1, with extremely high quality at that, it is not inconceivable that she would have achieved #2. An element (I think) of Tpia's argument is that given the stellar quality of Ngozi's other achievements, a brief or occasional professorial stint might plausibly be excluded due to it's relatively lower relevance. Not every single position of Ngozi's was covered in the mentioned biographies.

In essence, given she is qualified to hold the post, she could in all likelyhood be a professor.

debosky:

I disagree. Tpia's argument has merit because, unlike your gold medalist and space travel allegories, she has the requisite qualification - the PhD to hold a professorial office. Iweala is not on record as being on any national team contingent that would qualify her to win a medal, neither is there any evidence that she has undergone space travel training to even qualify her for space travel.

However, in this regard, there is some (albeit insufficient) basis to say that she could be a professor, while she could not be a bishop because bishops are men and she is NOT a man.

Tpia (by my understanding) is not asserting that lack of evidence means she is definitely a professor. She is simply employing Socratic teaching by requesting that you search deeper or question further instead of stopping at the 'publicly available' biographies, given the non-trivial facts that she holds a PhD from a distinguished institution as well as her extensive experience - the type of qualities that usually lead to professorial appointment.

debosky:

Tpia (by my understanding) is not asserting that lack of evidence means she is definitely a professor. She is simply employing Socratic teaching by requesting that you search deeper or question further instead of stopping at the 'publicly available' biographies, given the non-trivial facts that she holds a PhD from a distinguished institution as well as her extensive experience - the type of qualities that usually lead to professorial appointment.

tpia:

at least kobojunkie will cover his own ignorance with roflmao, but you just pop out of nowhere with stupid heewaws like the donkey you are!

RichyBlacK:

@debosky,

You're introducing other parameters to the argument that's distracting us from the issue:
1. Probability
2. Likelihood
3. Prerequisite
4. Socratic method

This issue is not as complicated as you're making it seem.

I asked a question, which was basically a call for evidence. tpia then entered the discussion with "bad belle" talk, revealing a clear contempt towards my asking for evidence to support the claim that Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is a professor. She then fell off the logical plateau by employing a negative proof! Simple.

tpia:

have you ever considered shutting up since you rarely have anything interesting to contribute to any topic?

Must you always type just because you can?

at least kobojunkie will cover his own ignorance with roflmao, but you just pop out of nowhere with stupid heewaws like the donkey you are!

tpia:

nigeria we hail these doltish ambassadors wey full nairaland.

Common sense is so uncommon!!!!

on top saliva wey debosky come waste them still get mouth to argue!

una partner try!!! If na me I for don bust una ass longtime!!!! na mumu fit una!!!!

Mr Tpia:

Why are you annoyed darling? Do you want me to take care of any of these guys for you?

spikedcylinder:

If you do, some people are sick! If you don't, some people are sick!

tpia:

Mr spikedcylinder tpia!

I think you accidentally chose the wrong user id- the sparks between you and spikedcylinder are so bright they're dazzling!!!

debosky:

I don't think I am complicating things, I am simply trying to elucidate the implicit steps in the arguments that have been put forth.

Probability is very important, even if not explicitly stated. If she was a stark illiterate, no one would even be interested in asking whether she could be or could not be a professor. Likelihood is synonymous with probability so those two are covered.

Prerequisites are essential to this discussion. If there is no basis for her being a professor, then the argument is moot - she cannot be a professor. Tpia's pointed reference to her PhD qualification clearly implies (to me at least) that she is making the argument that, given this qualification, it is worth engaging in a search to ascertain if she truly is a professor or not.

The last comment about the Socratic method is highly important as well - the main source of disagreement on this thread, as far as I can see, is a lack of understanding of different styles of approach. Without knowing what modus operandi or technique your 'opponent' (or should I say respondent) is using, you are bound to misinterpret - as you have clearly done.
She entered the discussion with two premises as I see them

1. You have a pre-determined opinion on this, and are (in her view) therefore not truly seeking an answer, merely affirmation of your position, which stems from your 'bad belle' 

2. By providing a 'teaser' or relevant (if not pre-requisite) qualification that could serve as a basis for professorship, she throws back the question to you, asking for evidence.

There is no negative proof involved in this, your interpretation of her argument as negative proof is wrong.