Gary Ackerman @garyackerman@qoto.org

One way to be sure I’ll never vote for you is aligning yourself with those who want to ban books.

Note to leaders: If you have to threaten folks to get them to go along with you, its time to reevaluate your ideas.

Critical thinking is a skill. If we don't practice it, we lose it.

Instructional supports. If they don’t fade, then they didn’t work.

Is it just me or does it seem “AI-powered investing advice” is probably snake oil… so it’s not unlike human-powered investing advice.

If you cannot accept being wrong, then teaching isn’t for you.

“Research proves….” No, actually it doesn’t.

"No one ever asked for it" is not a reason to not make your course materials accessible.

If the video was recorded as a selfie in a car (or walking) with a single person speaking, you can be sure it’s not worth watching.

A Venn diagram of faculty who don’t read directions and those who complain students don’t read the syllabus is a single circle.

Arguments that seem right but have little evidence are the most dangerous.

Forget teaching how to do taxes, if we teach the paradox of knowledge (“If you think you understand it, you are wrong”), we might be able to make better collective decisions.

“Can someone help me find the research supporting this widely used teaching practice? I can’t find it.”

That’s because it doesn’t exist.

“With a bit of imagination, nothing can be truly anomalous.” -Stephen Jay Gould

One reason science is skeptical of “old home remedies” is it is designed to provide causal explanations. It isn’t enough to conclude “this happens,” they seek to know “why it happens.”

Newton’s First Rule of Reasoning: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Good scientists can differentiate their hypothesis from a preconceived notion.

I've been around long enough to know that technologies that will "change everything" usually don't.

Cognition is emotional. If we don't care about it, we won't learn it.

The skepticism of science and the skepticism of denialism are different.