Reply to comment

While I agree that rehearsing a concept that was tricky enough the first time around twice (or even three times) can be frustrating and confusing, I kind of respect an appreciate what Professor Grobstein was doing here.

The NBS concentrators-forum last week included questions about how we thought researchers choose their topics and form their questions. This got me thinking about why researchers don't chose the topics they don't. It's very easy to remain within the limits of your biases, and even moreso to allow the backgroud truths provided by your language and culture go unquestioned. The Bryn Mawr College Intro Bio culture supports only one "truth" or account of how an action potential travels down an axon. It would be very easy to assume that this event can only be thought of in those terms, which would significantly limit the questions you could approach the topic with or the language you could use to describe it.

In breaking the uniform perception of "this is how neurons work," Professor Grobstein is providing a new approach and asking us to think in a manner to which we are not accustomed. I can relate from personal experience that an invaluable lab skill is the ability to generate your own new approaches to scenarios you thought you understood: thinking about the problem in a manner to which your are not accustomed. By providing two accounts of the same event, he is also reminding us of the loopy, story-telling nature of science. Many of the hard and fast "laws" of science are simply ways of describing what was observed; the formula for velocity is just one way to describe an object moving through space. Just becuase one account was taught first doesn't mean that it's explanatory power is somehow better (or worse). Also, language is imperfect and limited, so the more ways a concept is related, the more likely one is to understand the nuances of the process.