So I'm curious: Since you have contempt for the way college educates kids, do you hire a lot of employees straight out of high school and provide the kind of real-world on-the-job learning that you extol? Or do you think that's just something OTHER employers ought to do?

What casino would go broke from five or ten slot-machine jackpots? They actually do understand the statistics of payouts. That's why I mentioned the law of large numbers above.

Why? Wouldn't a machine that happened to hit multiple jackpots in a row be a huge draw for customers? My impression is that Casinos want flashy payouts to get more people to come play because they damned well understand the law of large numbers.

Fascinating. We're talking about teaching scientific reasoning, yet this comment, its parent and its grandparent all infer principles about how to get better qualified teachers into a classroom on the basis of personal anecdotes.

No one cites systematic research on what produces effective teachers. None even says, "this is my experience, but it would take systematic research to tell whether it can be generalized." Instead, each one falls into exactly the fallacy identified in the article in the OP: using informal reasoning and thinking that it's principle-based scientific reasoning.