"Blaine D. McArthur" wrote:
> George, The best anatomy atlases use illustrations rather than
> photographs, because of the vast range of variability in many organs,
> as well as for the sake of clarity. I do not think this has
> diminished the quality or value of medical school training in any
> way. (These illustration are, of course, based on years, if not
> decades and centuries of anatomical observations.) Have similar
> complaints been made about the use of stylized diagrams of faults,
> anticlines or mantle subduction in Geology textbooks? Deliberate
> misrepresentation is, of course, inexcusable and indefensible, but the
> use of drawn stylized illustrations is a powerful learning tool. I
> think this may be Jim's point
I have no disagreement with this. It's quite appropriate for
science educators to present simplifications of, & abstractions from,
real-life observations for pedagogic purposes. My only point was that
students should know that they _are_ simplifications & abstractions, &
that the real world is messier than that.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 12:33:00 EDT