Janet D. Stemwedel (whose nom de blog is Dr. Free-Ride) is an associate professor of philosophy at San Jose State University. Before becoming a philosopher, she earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. Email her at dr.freeride@gmail.com.
I'm sure I'm not the only academic who receives final exams with doodles (as well as "thank you for the class" and "please don't fail me!" messages). But I need to share a piece of exam artwork that transcends the bounds of doodling.
Indeed, it is a cartoon illustration that demonstrates good mastery of the concept about which the student was asked on that exam page. (In addition to the drawing, the student presented a perfectly correct and crystal clear written answer to the question. The drawing was an added bonus.)
Let me set up the cartoon with a brief explanation of the question so you can fully appreciate how wonderful it is:
Bas van Fraassen draws a hard line between observables and unobservables, where he defines "observable" as detectable with unaided senses. In other words, what we can observe (or could observe if it were close enough to us) depends strongly on the kind of sense organs we have and the kinds of entities that our sense organs can reliably notice.
Anything which humans could only detect with the aid of some kind of measuring device counts as "unobservable" for van Fraassen. This doesn't mean our scientific theories ought not to talk about such entities (like electrons or photons or germs or red blood cells), just that there is necessarily a chain of inference involved in the detection of these entities that gives them (in van Fraassen's view) a different epistemic status than the middle-sized drygoods that are observable.
Anyhow, the exam question asked for van Fraassen's definition of "observable", as well as the classification as observable or unobservable for a dinosaur, a unicorn, and an electron.
The dialog, for those squinting to make it out:
Dinosaur: Hey.
Unicorn: What's up.
Dinosaur: Ow!
Unicorn: What?
Dinosaur: An electron just hit me in the eye.
Unicorn: Prove it.
Dinosaur: Damn.
Unicorn: Ha!
Mad props to Anne K. for the visual.
Comments
It's still awesome the second time around!
Posted by: JM | December 15, 2006 2:18 PM
Oh, that is fantastic! (
Posted by: Jane Dark | December 15, 2006 3:47 PM
On the same topic. While I was taking Organic Chemistry another student completely flunked the final, but he always had a great sense of humor. This is a translation from Spanish.
Final Comic 1: What did one polar bear said to another one? Another left blank (white=blank in Spanish).
Final Comic 2 In a synthesis question: "Everything is Magic. Walt Disney"
Both had different characters and the professor was SOOOO pissed. I will never forget it.
Posted by: Tinni | December 15, 2006 4:47 PM
That is good. And I understand it. Well thanks to your explanation above. The most I know about chemistry is that when things get hot they move around faster, except that seems wrong to me because in the summertime I generally just lie on the floor all afternoon.
I don't teach, but I do customer service and management training and I always give credit to someone who can demonstrate understanding via alternate methods.
Posted by: chris | December 15, 2006 6:15 PM
This reminds me of one math paper I found on the tubes that said, "find x." The guy just drew an arrow with a note saying "here it is!"
Posted by: Baratos | December 15, 2006 10:10 PM
So cute! I love it when people are creative and fun. :)
Posted by: Breena Ronan | December 16, 2006 1:18 AM
Wow... the only time I get cartoons is when I give a question involving "Maxwell's Demon".
Posted by: dr. dave | December 16, 2006 1:47 PM
Nice cartoon, but why does this van Fraassen guy privilege stuff seen with the lens of the eye + retinal processing + geniculate/cortical processing over the same plus a microscope lens? I think he has far too high an opinion of the fidelity of sense organs.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 16, 2006 1:53 PM
PZ, the short answer is that since humans are the critters doing science, the kind of detectors with which humans come equipped get a privileged epistemic position. But I'm right with you on the difficulty this makes for a *community* of science made up of all manner of folks whose sense organs are differently tuned and not always reliable. (The students didn't have to come up with a fix to these worries on the exam.)
Posted by: Janet D. Stemwedel | December 16, 2006 1:59 PM
What does van Fraassen say about viewing the inside of a brick? It is certainly sufficiently macroscopic, but it is only accessible as a surface not as an interior.
"A chain of inference" implies linearity. Sit behind the console of a multinuclear supercon FT-NMR. A vast collection of mathematics, physics (near everything except gravitation), and engineering creates spectra sensitive to sub-parts-per-billion. A proton NMR of cholesterol taken tomorrow in the most advanced instrument is quantatively indistinguishable from a spectrum taken 20 years ago on the other side of the world using cholesterol from somebody else's gallstones. It is not "a chain of inference," it is a massive confluence of consistency perfect within the limits of observational error. There is no faith about it. It is empirically real on request.
Posted by: Uncle Al | December 17, 2006 2:14 PM
Janet, "...the short answer is that since humans are the critters doing science, the kind of detectors with which humans come equipped get a privileged epistemic position. But I'm right with you on the difficulty this makes for a *community* of science made up of all manner of folks whose sense organs are differently tuned and not always reliable. (The students didn't have to come up with a fix to these worries on the exam.)" Surely it's not the sense organs that give you epistemic viewpoint but the mind itself ? For example if one person who was fit and healthy was to ingest a hallucinogenic then they would perceive what would appear to be a reality that did not exist, and yet their senses are functioning perfectly and the reality is 'as is'. They even know that what they are perceiving does not exist. There is no dysfuntion other than the 'reality' the brain is creating and overlaying on the physical world. The sensory organs are functioning perfectly well...
This is just an observation from someone who knows nothing of philosophy but found the statement interesting.
Posted by: Adrian | July 23, 2007 9:36 AM