Re: generalized elephants

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 11:25 PM 10/29/00 -0600, Glenn A. Carlson wrote:

> We all know what an elephant is, but if I started talking about a
> "generalized elephant," I would expect someone to ask (with more or
> less diplomacy) what concept or principle of an elephant I am
> generalizing.  Replying "It won't do to claim that the elephant can't
> be generalized" is not responsive.  Replying that anteaters and jack
> rabbits are examples of generalized elephants is only somewhat
> responsive since it begs the question which concept or principle is
> being derived from the particulars of elephants, anteaters, and jack
> rabbits.

1) If a student were to ask me about "generalized elephants" (without
additional context) I would mention mastodons and woolly mammoths, and
would recommend the Encyclopedia Britannica which has a multi-hundred-word
article on "proboscidean".

2a) If anybody really thinks that anteaters and jackrabbits exemplify a
more-suitable generalization, please explain.

2b) If OTOH this is meant to illustrate the general point that no matter
what you are doing, you can always do it wrong... then I completely
agree!  When a student asks a question, if you try hard enough to
misunderstand, you can misunderstand.

My preference, however, is to assume that the student has a sensible reason
for asking about "generalized elephants" or "generalized reflections", even
if the question is not perfectly stated, and I try to give a sensible and
interesting answer.