[FRIAM] Nick's monism kick

Fri Sep 30 19:05:01 EDT 2022

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.charles at 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 <wimberly3 at 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.charles at 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?
>>> <echarles at american.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:51 PM <thompnickson2 at 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
>>>>
>>>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:47 PM
>>>> *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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220930/2fa05188/attachment.html>