I think this comes very close to our discussion on operationism. My response to eric’s challenge on that score was his “quantity” argument, which he himself disavowed. The attempt to identify a concept by a single operation or even by operations within a single paradigm is operationism, which I, as a pragmatist, condemn. However, the sum of all conceivable operations is the pragmaticist “meaning” of the concept. Now, in disavowing this “Quantitative” distinction between operationism and pragmatism, Eric seems to be reaching for some “essence” which is aside from all operations that might flow from adoption of the concept. I wrote you both about this, and neither has replied.
Now, as to the dialogue. I would be proud of the student by the fact that she has carried anything from the psycho building to the chemistry building. Most students go through a complete brainwashing when they pass out into the quadrangle. Finally, I would be proud of her holding her ground with the lab tech, even when such heavy artillery is brought to bear on her. As to the substance, I find the Lab Tech’s response oddly incoherent. First he appears to ding her for her flat affect. “Look, kid, some consequences are more… um… consequential than others. Don’t you feel the heat of that explosion?” On that point, I agree with him. Emotional consequences are consequences. We could do experiments on them. But then he seems to be dinging her for not understanding that the dire consequences arise from molecular events rather than from bad lab technique, as if they become more consequention when they are understood in atomic terms. As if their “dangerousness” is attached to their “atomicness”. This argument felt to me like some sort of creepy essentialism, I and wanted no part of it. I would have been even more proud of the student if she had responded, “Respectfully, sir, that makes no sense to me at all. What is truly dangerous here, what I must be steadfastly warned against, is mixing these two substances under particular circumstances, or even composing a mixture that might, though inattention, find itself under those circumstances. True, atomic principles might help me anticipate dangers with other solutions, but the danger is in the explosion, not in the atoms. ! In my year at Harvard, two of my classmates were thrown out for a chemistry experiment pursued in their dorm rooms that resulted in an explosion. The students defended themselves before the Dean (my uncle, as it happened), on the ground that the two chemicals involved could not have exploded! The chemistry department agreed. Nonetheless, the Dean threw they out, but with a Deanly wink encouraging application for re-admission in the following year. Have I answered your question? n Nick Thompson <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Mike Bybee <mikeby...@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM To: 'Nicholas Thompson' <thompnicks...@gmail.com>; 'Eric Charles' <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> Cc: 'Jon Zingale' <jonzing...@gmail.com>; friam@redfish.com Subject: RE: Nick's monism kick Importance: High I’ve been waiting for Nick to weigh in on this. Is it about time for the new academic conversation to begin? I think Eric’s imagined a wonderful dialogue here. First, it’s in the context of chemistry, Peirce’s paradigm for how-to-do-philosophy, so this makes Peirce’s point perfectly. Second, Eric has situated it as a discussion between a lab tech and a student, not between a chemistry professor and a student. That makes the whole thing far more poignant—but makes the whole tension between the Peirce’s levels of discourse so in-your-face as well. Anyway, I’m really curious to see how Nick will address Eric’s adventitious example, and I don’t want this to get lost in the autumn leaves! From: Nicholas Thompson Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 10:47 AM To: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > Cc: M. D. Bybee <mikeby...@earthlink.net <mailto:mikeby...@earthlink.net> >; Jon Zingale <jonzing...@gmail.com <mailto:jonzing...@gmail.com> >; friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 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 <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com <mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > 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/
