[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

[Eric Charles]

Well... yes.... but of course we recognize that Mike is reading into the
student exactly the sophistication I did not give her, which makes his
version a much better dialog for illustrating certain points, at the
expense of me trying to gut-punch Nick by having him overhear a student
completely missing the point of what he tried to teach her.

Mike gives a "Hooray" for Nick not falling into a trap of thinking
philosophical materialism or anti-materialism is relevant to the activities
of the chemistry or psychology lab, and that might or might not be
warranted. But in my dialog, Nick's sophomoric sophomore student *is* making
that mistake, and is endangering people because of that. That student
thinks the lab tech is an idiot for approaching the world in a materialist
fashion, and further thinks she can dismiss a safety warning because the
person who gave the warning is an unsophisticated thinker.

So let me make this a bit more extreme *again.*

Let's say that instead of hearing this in a hallway, Nick is watching it
play out on a video recording. At some point, the video is paused, and Nick
is asked what he thinks. Nick replies back as he did to my initial post
(modified slightly, including changed to in present tense):

I am proud of the student, proud that she has carried anything from the
psych building to the chemistry building. I am also proud of her for
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” On that point, I
agree with him.



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 consequential 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 want 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."


The person playing the tape pauses, slightly stunned by this rather
academic reply, and solemnly says "I take it you did not hear about the
explosion in the psychology lab?"

Nick gasps and says "What?!? No I hadn't!" Then, looking around the room
more keenly, he realizes there are not just academic muckety-mucks who
might be here to critique his teaching, but also some people taking notes
who might well be law enforcement of some type.

The person playing the tape continues: "After all of those things you were
so *proud *to see her to say, things continued. If I keep playing the tape
you will see the student disregard all the warnings that were given,
complaining, just as you did, about how the lab tech is clearly an
essentialist-thinker, who doesn't appreciate how irrelevant atomic terms
are to human action. She said, verbatim *almost *all the things you just
said you would be proud to hear her say, and then more about how
materialism was a faulty basis for a philosophy, and something about how it
was all just inferences all the way down anyway. The only part she didn't
say was any indication she took his warnings seriously in any way. She
stopped at the part where she said she wanted no part in such a creepy
and stupid conversation. Then she refused to leave the lab and kept right
on doing what she was doing before the lab tech gave her the warning, and
the lab tech couldn't stop her fast enough. And the recording ends with
just a flash. They are both dead now, along with several other students and
faculty members who were in the building at the time."

--------

The essential point of the initial dialog was that the student was exactly
*not* doing the extra bit of mental work Nick said he would have been
extra-proud of at the end, to understand that *whatever words the lab tech
was using*, the intent was to constrain action in accordance with known
risk. The student's obsession with the level-of-clarity of the thought
being expressed (which Mike emphasized) and with minutia about the words
being used (which Nick emphasized) *stopped* the smug and pretentious
student from heeding the warning. In the initial scenario, that refusal
simply led to the student being kicked out of the lab. Apparently her being
kicked out of the lab on those particular grounds made Nick proud of the
student, which presumably entails feeling good about himself as a teacher.
But surely that changes at least a bit if the Lab Tech, after having been
unsuccessful at creating the desired change in lab safety, is also
unsuccessful at getting the student to leave, and the thing-warned-against
(however you want to phrase it in terms of word choice or level of clarity)
came to pass?

If that had happened, would you still be especially proud of the student
for "holding her ground" against the pressure from the lab tech?

And are we going to try to blame the lab tech for not having been versed
enough in the philosophical context of the student's concern to provide the
more sophisticated answer that Mike provided?
<echarles at american.edu>


On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 2:25 PM Mike Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>             Ooh, I know I should wait for Nick, but this is really too
> exciting.  (Maybe I have too much time on my hands.  No, it’s not that.)
>
>             To recapitulate à
>
>             In Eric’s dialogue, we have a lab tech saying things on the
> level of familiarity.  I imagine him at Ogg the caveman level:  “Ugh.  Put
> pretty-colored things together, will go BOOM!”
>
>             We have an interlocutor (call him Dave) recognizing that this
> is not quite the level of discourse to which they’ve become accustomed in
> their chemistry courses.  “Uh, by pretty-colored things, you mean these
> solutions and chemicals?  And by ‘boom!’ do you mean a highly-energetic
> interaction with kilojoules of energy expended?”
>
>             And then we can imagine the actual chemist.  The chemist would
> recognize that discourse at the level of familiarity might get the job done
> (in the “utilitarian” or “expediency” sense of pragmatism, but not the
> praxis-ist sense).  That’s what Ogg expects.
>
>             And the chemist would also see that discourse in terms of
> abstract definitions might in some ways better communicate the expected
> experience (using the word “explosion,” for example, might more exactly
> express anticipated results).
>
>             But the chemist will be able to say exactly the same things as
> Ogg the caveman and Dave-the-abstract-thinker (or at least THINK exactly
> the same thing), but he would think of all of that at the highest level of
> clarity and distinctness, because Lavoisier trained chemists to do that.
>
>             Now,
>
>             Given all that à
>
>             I think we should also imagine Ogg the caveman lab tech saying
> to the student, “Yes, okay, if you need more precision, then I can express
> in those terms more exactly what I mean.  No, I don’t need to talk about
> “matter” any more than I need to talk about “fist.”  Yes, I realize that
> fist-talk is just expedient or convenient talk.  Yes, in such a case, to be
> more precise I would have to talk about a hand configuration, and to be
> more precise, I need to stop talking about ‘matter.’  You’re right.
>
>             “And yes, some psychologist *might* mistakenly appeal to a
> kind of non-dualism in this case and talk about materialism.  Such a
> non-dualist materialist might say something like this:  The soul is to the
> body as the kick is to a leg.  That is, some psychologists might think we
> can reduce all psychology talk to materialism.  But no, that’s not what we
> do in the chemistry lab, and evidently, that’s not what Nick’s doing when
> he does psychology, either.  Hooray for Nick for understanding that at the
> ultimate level of discourse, such appeals miss the point of having
> discourse at the most profound level.”
>
>             In THAT respect, the student has it entirely wrong at the end
> of Eric’s continuation.  As Eric imagines it, the student says, “What?
> Just because *you* are naïve enough to believe in materialism, I need to
> get out?!?”
>
>             If the lab tech were not Ogg the caveman, he or she would
> respond, “No, that’s not the reason you need to get out.  You need to get
> out for reasons that have nothing to do with the
> materialism-idealism-dualism debate entirely.  In fact, you need to get out
> [at the ultimate level of discourse] exactly for the reasons that Nick
> specifies, because we know that if you continue doing certain things
> (praxis) then certain events will result, and we can specify both the
> *doing* and the *results* at the highest level of clarity and
> distinctness.  Any problem with that?”
>
>             Isn’t that what’s at stake in Eric’s dialogue and (especially)
> in his continuation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:02 AM
> *To:* Mike Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* thompnickson2 at gmail.com; Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com>;
> friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> Mike captures key aspects of what I was trying to say very well: That
> there are different types of conversations happening, and they involve
> different levels of clarity.
>
>
>
> Glen also picks up on the general assholery which might have been too
> subtle for Nick, so I want to draw it out for a few more sentences and then
> re-ask the base questions about what Nick thinks of the interactions. So,
> starting from the end of the prior dialog....
> ----------
>
> 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!
> Lab tech: Ok, whatever, I don't care about that right now. What I *need*
> is for you to follow the safety procedures, which are in place
> for a reason. And in particular, at this moment, I need you to be careful
> with the chemicals that are on the desk.
> Student: <playing with vials> The experience-chemicals on the
> experience-desk? This is all just expectations about predictions! God you
> are naive! You should really take Dr. Thompson's class!
> Lab tech: <taking vials off desk and storing them in a cabinet> Seriously,
> I think it's time for you to leave.
>
> Student: What? Just because *you* are naive enough to believe in
> materialism, *I* need to get out?!?
> Lab tech: Apparently.
> -----------
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> What am I trying to emphasize more strongly:   Students who refuse to
> follow safety procedures, because those procedures are just based on
> materialist drivel, which Dr. Thompson taught them is crap, are, *I hope
> we would all agree*, students who it is reasonable to kick out of the
> chemistry lab. The intellectual activity of rejecting materialist-monism
> has little, if any, connection with whether you should follow the
> instructions you have been given for proper handling of "materials" in the
> lab.
>
>
>
> And further:   It would be understandable that if Nick started creating an
> abundance of such students - students who refused to follow any
> requests/rules/guidance that seemed rooted in materialist thought - it
> would eventually lead to some serious strain between Nick and his
> colleagues.
>
>
>
> To try to draw out the latter points: If Nick were teaching at Columbia,
> or UCLA, and his students routinely interacted with students and faculty in
> the Material Science program, AND the typical form of such interaction was
> an incredulous "What? You believe in material?!? I'm embarrassed for you!",
> that would be a far cry from the intention of whatever lesson Nick was
> trying to teach them.... right? Rejecting *material*ism as a foundational
> philosophical principle has f^ck all to do with whether your *material* of
> choice when building a jet engine fan should be aluminium or titanium....
> right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Mike Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Let me summarize, if I can:
>
>             First, the distinction between operationalism and praxis-ism
> and the praxis-ist definition of definition.
>
>             Percy Bridgman’s operationalism insists that every operation
> denotes a separate concept.  That is, the concept ‘length’ when determined
> by a tape measure is a different concept than the concept ‘length’
> determined by a ruler.
>
>             Peirce (following what Lavoisier does instead of what
> Lavoisier says) says that a given concept is determined by all the praxis /
> experimental determinations combined.  This reflects his remarks on
> consilience and so on.
>
>             So much for operationalism and pragmatism (qua praxis-ism, not
> utilitarianism or expediency-ism).
>
>             Would you say that agrees with your sense, Nick?  So far, so
> good?
>
>
>
>             But now I’m not sure to what extent we see Eric’s imagined
> dialogue from the same point of view.
>
>             When it comes to discourse or to dialogues such as the one
> Eric imagined for us, Peirce has the notion of different “levels of
> clarity.”  His illustration is the concept of ‘reality.’  At the “level” of
> familiarity, nothing could be clearer than this, he says.  Then he says, “As
> for clearness in its second grade, however, it would probably puzzle most
> men, even among those of a reflective turn of mind, to give an abstract
> definition of the real.”  So, the next “level” up from familiarity is that
> level he calls “abstract definition.”
>
>             But then (he says) “But, however satisfactory such a
> definition may be found, it would be a great mistake to suppose that it
> makes the idea of reality perfectly clear.”  We need to be clearer—and more
> distinct as well, I imagine.
>
>             This is similar to so-called “provisional” terminology in
> Buddhism and “ultimate” terminology.  At the provision level we can speak
> about such things as fists and kicks and so on, but at the ultimate level
> (so to speak), we know that by “fist,” we mean nothing more than a
> particular configuration of a hand and fingers.  A fist is actually an
> epiphenomenon.  So, too, with “kick.”
>
>             So, we can be speaking OF THE SAME THING at different levels
> of clarity (and distinctness).
>
>             And given Eric’s imagined dialogue, we can see that speakers
> can sometimes not even grasp that they’re speaking of the same thing, just
> at different levels of clarity and distinctness!
>
>             At least, I thought that’s what Eric’s dialogue made
> abundantly clear.  On the one hand, we have a lab tech speaking at one
> level (say, the level of familiarity).  On the other hand, we have a
> student who’s speaking at a different level of clarity and distinctness
> (sometimes the theoretical level, at other times the praxis-ism level).
>
>             But they’re both saying the same thing.
>
>
>
>             Is that another way of saying what you were saying, Nick?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 12:59 PM
> *To:* 'Mike Bybee' <mikebybee at earthlink.net>; 'Eric Charles' <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' <jonzingale at gmail.com>; friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* RE: Nick's monism kick
>
>
>
> 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2022 1:03 PM
> *To:* 'Nicholas Thompson' <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>; 'Eric Charles' <
> eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Jon Zingale' <jonzingale at gmail.com>; friam at 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.charles at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* M. D. Bybee <mikebybee at earthlink.net>; Jon Zingale <
> jonzingale at gmail.com>; friam at 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.charles at 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220924/050efae2/attachment.html>