My conclusion: the Lab Tech was dumb for mentioning atoms. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 3:21 PM Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > Two preliminaries: > 1) For what it's worth, I am trying to back Nick into a different corner > than the one Mike thinks I am.... but Mike is correct in seeing that I > don't want to let Nick weasel out of the confrontation. It is perfectly > valid for Nick to point out that he is proud of any student who takes > *anything *from one course to another, but that doesn't speak to whether > he would be happy or not seeing this particular interaction play out due to > the effects of his teaching. > > 2) Both Mike and Nick want to read into the lab tech something I was > exactly excluding from the lab tech's reaction - a sophisticated > understanding of the situation that matches what they would like to have a > student glean from their classrooms. In the email I am currently replying > to, Nick says something like "I don't recognize the student as saying what > I would say" and to that I reply "Exactly!" The student isn't a stand in > for you, they are a person your teachings have significantly influenced. > The student, *like you*, doesn't see the role that "real" or "fact" play in > the conversation, and *like you* any hint of "essentialism", especially > connected with something that sounds like a crude "materialism", makes her > scoff. > > The basics of the initial scenario are: > A lab tech is giving a safety warning. The student, rather than complying > with that warning, tries to initiate a conversation about how the words > used in the warning make it seem like maybe the lab tech could learn a > thing or two about philosophy from Dr. Thompson (a typical > sophomoric-sophomore way to respond). The lab tech doesn't give a shit > about any of that, and reiterates the safety warning, elaborating it in > ways that make sense *to him* by adding in words like "fact" and "atoms". > The student scoffs even harder now, because this poor fellow can't even > understand that she is trying to help him learn how to think better. As you > listen in the hall, the student's responses might not be *exactly* what you > would say in her place, but it is obvious that she is *trying* to do the > type of conversation you modeled in your class, and that what is happening > is due to your influence as an instructor. The culmination of the back and > forth is that, because the student is doing everything other than complying > with the warning, the lab tech - in his role as the person charged with > maintaining lab safety - kicks her out of the chemistry lab. > > And the basic questions to Nick were: > How do you feel witnessing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound > like the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended > message gone awry? > > In the second version, I tried to make the culmination of the interaction > even more extreme, so that the key aspect of the interaction - that the > student was responding to a safety warning by talking philosophy - was even > more obvious. As the conversation continues, the increasingly exasperated > lab tech brings in more and more potentially-irrelevant terms and concepts > for the student to smugly nit pick, until eventually the > thing-being-warned-about actually occurs and several people are grievously > injured. > > How was I hoping Nick would respond? I was hoping it would look something > like this: > 1) No, I would *not *be happy if I overheard that interaction. > 2) She misunderstood X and/or she apparently didn't grok the part where I > explained Y. > 3) If I had done a better job in the classroom, she would have cared about > understanding what his warning meant in terms of practice. (And I imagine > anything that Nick adds to illustrate this point would lines up pretty well > with Mike's dialog.) > > If Nick has finally wrapped his head around the scene being played out, I > still want to hear from him what X and/or Y are. GIVEN that the student > seems to have a reasonable - if imperfect - understanding of the > conversational side of things, i.e., given that the student is saying > things to the Lab Tech that are very close to what you (Nick) would say in > the student's place, what exactly is it that she failed to appreciate about > the point of view you were presenting? > <[email protected]> > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Friends, >> >> >> >> Eric has prompted me to wade into this thread, but I confess I have not >> well understood the issues, even from the start. So much of subsequent >> characterization of my position feels so foreign to me that I don’t now how >> to >> >> relate it to what I believe. As understand the three of us, Mike is >> trying to represent the True Peirce, I am trying to represent the Peirce >> position insofar as it is a monist position, and Eric is trying to >> understand Peirce insofar as he agrees with James. But I cannot even >> follow those usual themes through the present discussion. >> >> >> >> Even the original hypothetical was confusing to me. Of course the web of >> terms employed by the lab tech, Pragmatically viewed, encapsulates a broad >> network of knowledge concerning when things explode. And I suppose, >> therefore, Mike might see me as anti-Pragmatic (and merely pragmatic) when >> I stress the relation between mixing THESE flasks under THESE CIRCUMSTANCES >> and bad consequences. I accept that criticism, but I don’t really see him >> making it. >> >> >> >> Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be >> careful so it doesn't happen. >> Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if >> certain experiences happen now. >> Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... >> yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under >> certain circumstances in the future, *but the chemical reaction and the >> damage it could cause are well known facts.* >> >> >> >> I never really understood how the words real and facts are working in >> this hypothetical and why the Labtech thinks that their safety, in the >> instant, is better guaranteed by knowing about atoms, than by knowing to >> keep the two flasks separate. >> >> >> >> As for the rest, I am completely lost. I really need to pull it out into >> a single document and study the damn thing. I am torn between an impulse >> to capitalize on Mike’s participation and the fact that I have much else on >> my plate right now. >> >> >> >> Are we perhaps writing something here? If so, I will try to do my best >> to put aside everything else and pitch in. >> >> >> >> I love you guys, honest! >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> Nick Thompson >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM >> *To:* Eric Charles <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* M. D. Bybee <[email protected]>; Jon Zingale < >> [email protected]>; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Nick's monism kick >> >> >> >> I am at the moment living in a remote colony of rich peoples shacks, >> Hence no Internet. >> >> >> >> But I like the question so well I am forwarding it to the list. I will >> get back to you when I do not have to thumb my answer. >> >> N >> >> Sent from my Dumb Phone >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Eric Charles < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> You have been asking for "an assignment", and I think I finally thought >> of a good one for you. (And I think it might spur some interesting >> discussion, which is why others are copied here.) >> >> >> >> Imagine that you are still teaching at Clark, and that you have been >> tentatively including your current monism more and more in some of the >> classes. When walking by the Chemistry labs, you recognize the voice of an >> enthusiastic student you had last quarter,, and you start to ease drop. The >> conversation is as follows: >> >> Lab tech: Be careful with that! If it mixes with the potassium solution, >> it can become explosive, we would have to evacuate the building. >> Student: What do you mean? >> Lab tech: If the potassium mixes with chlorides at the right ratio, then >> we are *probably* safe while it is in solution, but if it dries up, it is a >> hard-core explosive and it wouldn't take much to level the whole building. >> We would have to take that threat seriously, and evacuate the building >> until I made the solution safe. >> Student: Oh, a predictions about future experiences, I like those! >> Lab tech: What? I'm talking about a real danger, and I need you to be >> careful so it doesn't happen. >> Student: Yes, exactly, you believe that those experiences will follow if >> certain experiences happen now. >> Lab tech: Huh? No. I'm telling you how the physical atoms work. I mean... >> yes... the part about the explosion is something that would happen under >> certain circumstances in the future, but the chemical reaction and the >> damage it could cause are well known facts. Look, man, if you aren't here >> to learn how to be safe with the chemicals, then maybe you should just >> leave. >> Student: Wait, seriously? You aren't some kind of *materialist* are >> you?!? You know anything we could talk about are *just* experiences, right? >> It's experiences all the way down! >> >> Listening in, you can tell that the student is taking this line based on >> your influence, because it sounds like things they were kinda-sorta >> starting to grock in your class. >> >> How do you feel hearing that? Proud, worried, confused? Does it sound >> like the student was getting the message you intended, or has the intended >> message gone awry? Would you have said something similar to the Lab Tech >> under the same circumstances? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
