fossildoc
11-28-2007, 09:26 PM
No usual disclaimer here, because this really happened today.
In a recent post, I revealed that I was philosophically an Absurdist. This post is an example of the experiences that drive me to that orientation.
We had a quiz today, and went over it with the teacher. Two questions sparked spirited debate between the teacher and all the students, some of whom are very smart (not me, BTW).
I have changed the questions to something abstract in order to remove the distraction of technical detail, but without changing the principles involved.
Here's the first question:
Which of the following anti-fungal medications is least likely to be effective in the treatment of Bob's Toe Fungus disease (BTFD)?
(a) mymed (100)
(b) yourmed (90)
(c) hermed (80)
(d) hismed (70)
(e) nomed (0)
The numbers in parentheses were not in the question; I've put them there to give you an indication of the relative effectiveness of each medication. Notice that nomed is not effective against BTFD.
Everyone in the class answered (e). The teacher's answer is (d).
Why? Because -- according to the teacher -- 'no effectiveness' is not part of the concept of 'least likely'. In order to be 'least likely', the medication must have at least some degree of likeliness, that is, some level of effectiveness.
I challenged the teacher with this question: is zero degrees 'least heat'? No, he replied; zero degrees is not 'least heat' because 'least heat' implies that there is at some some heat, and at zero degrees, there is no heat.
Am I going too fast? If so, take a nap before going to the second example.
OK, now that you're awake, here's the second question, which again I've simplied to remove technical detail:
A woman is being treated for Harry's disease. Of the following antibiotics, which one has the least severe adverse reactions (ADRs)?
(a) mybiotic
(b) yourbiotic
(c) hisbiotic
(d) herbiotic
Everyone in the class answered (d) because it is the antibiotic with the least severe ADRs.
But the teacher's answer is (b). Why? Because (c) and (d) are not used in the treatment of Harry's disease, and in the remaining choices, the one with less severe ADRs is (b).
Got that?
This teacher is very smart in his field. I suspect there is a cultural conflict here, in which a form of logic which makes perfect sense and is common in his native country makes no sense at all to the Americans and Canadians that predominate at Xavier. If that is the case, it has ADRs (!) for students, because major exams are not generally reviewed and subject to challenge.
Your comments, please.
In a recent post, I revealed that I was philosophically an Absurdist. This post is an example of the experiences that drive me to that orientation.
We had a quiz today, and went over it with the teacher. Two questions sparked spirited debate between the teacher and all the students, some of whom are very smart (not me, BTW).
I have changed the questions to something abstract in order to remove the distraction of technical detail, but without changing the principles involved.
Here's the first question:
Which of the following anti-fungal medications is least likely to be effective in the treatment of Bob's Toe Fungus disease (BTFD)?
(a) mymed (100)
(b) yourmed (90)
(c) hermed (80)
(d) hismed (70)
(e) nomed (0)
The numbers in parentheses were not in the question; I've put them there to give you an indication of the relative effectiveness of each medication. Notice that nomed is not effective against BTFD.
Everyone in the class answered (e). The teacher's answer is (d).
Why? Because -- according to the teacher -- 'no effectiveness' is not part of the concept of 'least likely'. In order to be 'least likely', the medication must have at least some degree of likeliness, that is, some level of effectiveness.
I challenged the teacher with this question: is zero degrees 'least heat'? No, he replied; zero degrees is not 'least heat' because 'least heat' implies that there is at some some heat, and at zero degrees, there is no heat.
Am I going too fast? If so, take a nap before going to the second example.
OK, now that you're awake, here's the second question, which again I've simplied to remove technical detail:
A woman is being treated for Harry's disease. Of the following antibiotics, which one has the least severe adverse reactions (ADRs)?
(a) mybiotic
(b) yourbiotic
(c) hisbiotic
(d) herbiotic
Everyone in the class answered (d) because it is the antibiotic with the least severe ADRs.
But the teacher's answer is (b). Why? Because (c) and (d) are not used in the treatment of Harry's disease, and in the remaining choices, the one with less severe ADRs is (b).
Got that?
This teacher is very smart in his field. I suspect there is a cultural conflict here, in which a form of logic which makes perfect sense and is common in his native country makes no sense at all to the Americans and Canadians that predominate at Xavier. If that is the case, it has ADRs (!) for students, because major exams are not generally reviewed and subject to challenge.
Your comments, please.