At 11:45 AM -0500 8/26/07, Rick Froman wrote: >Speaking from experience as a one-time undergrad learning student >whose rat died in the middle of training, sometimes the real thing >is not as educational as a simulation (unless you mean in teaching >the facts of life and death and the fact that life isn't fair). Just >as a theory based on data will be more generalizable than the >experience of a single data point, all the extraneous stuff that >goes on with training a live rat sometimes just obscures the point >you are trying to teach.
Problem is, Sniffy (at least the last time I tried it) was NOT based on the data of the behavior of a live rat. If you try to shape it the way that you would shape a real living organism nothing happens. You have to follow its instructions. >Rick > >Dr. Rick Froman >Psychology Department >Box 3055 >John Brown University >Siloam Springs, AR 72761 >(479) 524-7295 ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >"Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart" >- Ulysses Everett McGill > > >From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sun 8/26/2007 11:12 AM >To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) >Subject: [tips] RE: Sniffy vs real rats > >At 6:16 PM -0500 8/15/07, Michael Scoles wrote: >>Tim is right. In discussing ethical issues regarding animal >>research, we preach that simulations imply an understanding of the >>animal, which we don't really have. So, why do we suggest that >>they act as "researchers" with a simulation? Students will >>discover that a real animal (mouse, rat, pigeon, dog, or human) >>doesn't behave exactly like their textbook says. > >'Sniffy' definitely does not behave like real rat, but there are >other simulations that are better, such as CyberRat ><http://www.psych-ai.com/cyberratnet_folder/welcome.html>. >All simulations are models, and as such are limited in the range of >behaviors and situations modeled, but based on ten years of >students using both live rats and CyberRat (and comparing the two), >CyberRat is very realistic. >-- >The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that >people believe in it. > >* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * >* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * >* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * >* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * > >--- >To make changes to your subscription go to: >http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english > -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
