Frank, let's run with that! Assuming it was stupid to bring up atoms, how SHOULD the student respond? Verbally and behaviorally?
How do you typically respond to stupid advice? :- ) On Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 6:19 PM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/
