The student should focus on the word danger, which the Lab Tech should have used. I politely ignore bad advice.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 4:43 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <wimber...@gmail.com> 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 < >> eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> 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? >>> <echar...@american.edu> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> 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 >>>> >>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>> >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Nicholas Thompson <thompnicks...@gmail.com> >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM >>>> *To:* Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> >>>> *Cc:* M. D. Bybee <mikeby...@earthlink.net>; Jon Zingale < >>>> jonzing...@gmail.com>; 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> 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/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . 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/