• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Has anyone ever told you that you might receive an operation by a surgeon who had trained for only one month?

    Is the hypothetical threat captured in your scenario relevant, credible, or realistic in relation to the particular distinctions from the context?

    • slackassassin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They were just demonstrating that the labor of the surgeon does actually require more skill. Because it does, objectively.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In this case it was a straw man argument.

        A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

        The conversation was about how all labor is skilled labor, then you brought up an entirely audacious hyperbole about a specific career field and argued against your own example. Yes, surgeons need more training than a burger flipper, and yes, they deserve apt compensation for that disparity in time and expertise, but that does not mean that the burger flipper is “unskilled” or that the surgeon would be any more capable of flipping burgers because of their training to be a surgeon. Your “demonstration” was irrelevant to the topic at hand and constituted a bad faith argument. That is what you were being called out on, not the content of the argument itself.

        • Saledovil
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this case it was a straw man argument.

          Let’s take a look at the original thesis from @unfreeradical, shall we:

          Different kinds of labor take different skills, not more or less, better or worse.

          I consider ‘skill’ to be measurable by the amount of time needed to acquire it. You can take somebody fresh out of high school, and turn him into a competent fry cook in a month, but not into a competent surgeon. Hence the surgeon requires both more skill, as well as different skills. Therefore the surgeon/fry-cook example is a counterexample to the thesis, and thus disproves the thesis.

          but that does not mean that the burger flipper is “unskilled”

          I never said that burger flippers are unskilled, or that they need no training, just that 1 month is enough to learn how to do it. So, basically you’re misrepresenting my argument to claim I’ve used a straw man argument.

        • slackassassin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. They said that labor did not require more or less skill. They did not say that all labor is skilled labor. You, ironically, are fighting the straw man.

            • slackassassin
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not a strawman just because you miss the point so entirely.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your point is that if you needed surgery, then you would want it performed other than by a cook with a dirty spatula.

                Your point is meaningless.

                No one suggested that someone performing surgery would not be properly trained.

                • slackassassin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That wasn’t my point because i didn’t say that. I was explaining that the person who did was only describing how having more or less skill is true using that scenario.

                  • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Skill is not a quantity.

                    You identified as a quantity duration of time invested training.

                    You conflated an item with one of its attributes.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some skills surely are less common within some population, and some may require more training above the skill sets generally shared within a society.

        No one is suggesting receiving surgery from an uncredentialed surgeon.

        Are such observations broadly relevant or valuable, though, within the context?

        • slackassassin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You said that different labor does not take more or less skill. Perhaps you were trying to make a different point that you are now trying to tease out socraticly.

          Do you think making false statements is a valuable approach? Do you think a job requiring less skill is a bad thing or that it should be respected any less than one that does?

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I observed that different kinds of labor require skills that differ qualitatively, yet by the inherent attributes of labor emerges no particular ranking among the kinds.

            What statements have I made that are inaccurate?

            • slackassassin
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is inaccurate to say that labor does not require more or less skill. That is what you said.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You are conflating a duration of time invested acquiring a particular skill, which is quantitative, and therefore may be ranked, if desired, with a skill itself.

                • slackassassin
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No one is conflating anything. You are arguing with yourself. Rank it however you want. People can have more or less skill, and that’s OK.

                  It doesn’t mean that one person deserves more rights than another. THAT is the point.

        • Saledovil
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are such observations broadly relevant or valuable, though, within the context?

          Yes. Skill can be measured by the time needed to attain it. Since the skills needed by a surgeon take years to acquire, the surgeon requires more skill than the fry cook. This is a counterexample to your thesis. And by being a counterexample to your thesis, it is relevant and/or valuable. Unless of course, your thesis were to be considered irrelevant and worthless.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are conflating a duration of time invested acquiring a particular skill, which is quantitative, and therefore may be ranked, if desired, with a skill itself.

              • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Skills differ qualitatively, but not by expressing any natural ranking as greater or lesser one against another.

                • Saledovil
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, I do agree that the surgeon isn’t necessarily a better person because he has spend more time studying, but the greater time investment in training a surgeon is something that needs to be taken into consideration. How do you think should it be considered?

                  • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Now you are shifting the goalposts. I am not asserting that no one would take note of how someone may acquire one skill compared to another.

                    Again, skills are different, not greater or lesser.

    • Saledovil
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      With the term ‘training’ I mean all job relevant education. As in, a surgeon whose entire medical education happened within 1 month, not a surgeon who graduated med school and then was trained for 1 month as a surgeon.

      Is the hypothetical threat captured in your scenario relevant, credible, or realistic in relation to the particular distinctions from the context?

      Yes, it illustrates that for some tasks, training is more essential than for other tasks. Also, why are you asking that?

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know medical training is on the job hands on and every doctor is expected statistically to kill someone, not simply not save someone but actively lead to their death in one way or another.

        • Saledovil
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          🐈 They do spend years in med school before they are allowed to kill a patient, though.

        • slackassassin
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet, they are not only more skilled than someone who is not a doctor, but also more so than their younger self. It’s almost as if one can garner more skill through experience.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The issue relates to whether various kinds of skill express a natural ranking .

        Has any suggestion genuinely produced, as a credible concern, the scenario you described, or was it rather constructed as a bogeyman that would obstruct even criticism that is substantive and germane?