In article <941107162531.373c at ups.edu> MELIKIAN at UPS.EDU writes:
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 16:22:37 -0800 (PST)
> From: MELIKIAN at ups.edu> To: kspencer at iti.org> Message-Id: <941107162237.373c at ups.edu>
> Subject: Re: discussion on the neuroscience news group
>> Mr.Cook, I would suggest you take your ridiculous comments
> somewhere else. What kind of a reply did you expect from people?
> Please respect the integrity of this medium. Thank You. George Melikian
>>End of returned message
Please read my addendum to my original message.
Seems I have hit an open wound here. I may also be guilty of
assuming that people asking for information about "X" without
supplying ANY reference point from which to initiate an answer
don't know squat about the subject. My fault for assuming, their
fault for not taking the time to establish a foundation (in writing).
I DO have free-will; I won't answer general interrogatives. But
it's also amazing to me that so many of the questions in the b.n are
of the general interr. category.
I believe that teaching students the process of formulating
questions is a reasonable and worthwhile use of time. This is not
abdicating responsibility for learn ing the facts, READING THE PAPERS,
establishing a foundation for our experiments! But so few of the under-
grads and graduate students will remember the role of oxaloacetate in the
Krebs cycle, which promoter does what, or the origin of a triphasic action
potential. The fundamental process of formulating the question is often
secondary, unspoken, or worse yet, ignored. Many argue that it's up to the
student to make that leap. I suggest it be tackled aggressively in the
classroom, esp. in the science classes.
I have experiments to do.
paul b. cook
