These questions are to help direct your reading and facilitate class discussions of the issues. Please write answers to the questions (a short paragraph for each) on the back of the sheet before the class meets. I will occasionally collect these papers and evaluate them as part of your grade.

Why People Believe Weird Things (pages ix-23) --

1. Always start a new book by first finding out what you can about the author. Who is Michael Shermer? What is his source of authority on this topic? What can you tell about his perspective from the book description and introductory material?

2. The foreword of the book is written by Stephen Jay Gould. Having another author pen a foreword to your book is an important statement. Who is (or rather, was) Stephen Jay Gould?

3. At the end of his introduction, Shermer speculates on an evolutionary explanation for “why people believe weird things”. What is this idea? Do you find it plausible?

4. Sum ergo cogito is Shermer’s summary of his “Skeptic’s Manifesto”. What does this mean beyond the translation? What is a skeptic, anyway? Are you one?

Reading Lolita in Tehran --

5. I have chosen one question from your summer reading topics for our brief discussion of this book: Under what circumstances and to what extent should change be resisted and tradition defended (and vice versa)? Think of this question first in terms of the author’s experiences in Iran and then your own life.

Assignment for Thursday’s Class --

1. Find an online review of Why People Believe Weird Things and be prepared to report on it in class on Thursday.

2. Continue the reading in Why People Believe Weird Things as scheduled (through page 43).

3. Your summer essay (one to two pages) on Reading Lolita in Tehran is due to me electronically (an attachment sent to mwilson@wooster.edu) no later than Friday, September 1, at noon. (The prompt: “Which one character in the book did you find most disturbing and why?”) This is required of everyone except our two transfer students.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Why People Believe Weird Things (pages 24-43) --

1. On page 26 Shermer has a chart showing percentages of belief in the American public on the following items:

Astrology
Extrasensory Perception
Witches
Aliens have landed on Earth
The lost continent of Atlantis
Dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously
Noah’s Flood
Communication with the dead
Ghosts
Actually had a psychic experience

The trouble is, this poll is from 1991. (You were what, three years old?) Surely we’ve learned much since then! Your job now is to go to the Web and update these numbers, citing your sources. Use the most recent survey data you can. You may not find the exact questions, but you can come close. I will also tell you what the class believes on the similar questions you answered last week.

2. I have a bit of a problem with this term “believe”. What does it mean to believe something? How does it differ from knowing? When are you confident that you know something, and when is it belief?

3. What have the reviews of Why People Believe Weird Things been like? There are those who appreciate Shermer’s work, and those who don’t. Can you characterize these groups in any way?

Assignment for Tuesday’s Class --

1. Continue the reading in Why People Believe Weird Things as scheduled (through page 61) and start the reading of Whyte’s Crimes Against Logic (through page 50).

2. Your first official course essay will be assigned on Tuesday. I’m waiting because I want to derive the topic from this week’s discussions.

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Why People Believe Weird Things (pages 44-61) --

1. How can thinking go wrong? Certainly we have evidence that some very bright people can be very confused in some situations. In fact, magicians usually prefer a smart audience because they are more easily fooled. Why would this be? You would think that an intelligent person would more easily see through a magic trick, but apparently this doesn’t happen very often.

2. Apply Hume’s Maxim to some miraculous event of your choosing. One which is not in the book. Simply tell me of a “miracle” and how Hume’s approach can be useful. Are there any conceptual problems with this tool?

3. Take one “problem in pseudoscientific thinking” (p. 48-55) and one of the “logical problems in thinking” (p. 55-58) and develop your own examples of their applications.

Assignment for Thursday’s Class --

1. Continue the reading of Whyte’s Crimes Against Logic (through page 50) We will concentrate on it on Thursday.

2. Get a start on your Essay #1 so that we can discuss any questions you have in class on Thursday. That essay is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 12.

Thursday, September 7, 2006

Crimes Against Logic (pages ix-50) --

1. So who is this new author for us, Jamie Whyte? Tell me more about him than you find in the back of the book. How would you characterize his philosophical perspective on life? How about his authority to pronounce on things philosophical?

2. I love a provocative philosopher: “You don’t really have a right to your own opinions” (page 2). Whatever does he mean by this?

3. What is the “Motive Fallacy”? Where is an example in today’s news and opinion where the motive fallacy may be at work? Have you yourself partaken in this bit of mistaken logic?

4. One of the most important issues for us in this class is that of “authority”. What is the “Authority Fallacy” according to Whyte? When does he say citing an authority is acceptable? How do you then determine who is an acceptable authority and who isn’t on a particular topic?

5. Religious faith is the topic where Whyte is at his most controversial – and direct. We will boldly follow his logic when it comes to “religious mysteries”. Why does he reject the very concept of a religious notion such as that of the Trinity in Christianity? Can you imagine any religious doctrine he is likely to accept?

First Essay Assignment (due at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 12) --

We are approaching the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Over one third of Americans believe that the attacks were either allowed by the US government or actually assisted by it in order to have a pretext for war in the Middle East. We will spend considerable time on this topic later in the semester, so I’m not interested here in your analysis of the evidence or even what your particular conclusions are about the controversies. What I want you to address in this essay is the question: “What does it matter what we as Americans believe about the events of 9/11?” This essay should be 3-4 pages long, double-spaced and with reasonable margins. No formal citations are necessary. No research is required, but it is always useful to be aware of the events you are describing, the common opinions about them, and similar situations in history, especially since computer searching is so very easy.

This essay is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 12. Late papers will receive a significant grade penalty.

 

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Crimes Against Logic (pages 97-116; 147-157) --

1. Whyte devotes a whole chapter to equivocation, starting with the concept of Christians and “good” and working through economic examples. You know this is coming – What is your own example of equivocation in action?

2. “Only a liar would run for political office. The fact that politicians are liars is proof of this.” What sort of logical fallacy is this? Explain, using another example.

3. This philosopher holds nothing back. His discussion of tolerance and intolerance is most intriguing, especially as you begin your college careers. According to Whyte, what are the limits of tolerance? What are your own limits? How do you define tolerance in the first place? Can you think of alternative terms for the same concept?

4. Morality Fever? Take one of these propositions and critically review it: What’s Wicked is False; What’s Beneficial is True; The Meek Shall Inherit the Truth. Whyte takes no prisoners here – neither should you.

5. Whyte’s parting advice for us is to “Be Serious”. What are the costs of being serious in his terms?

“Letter to Your Future” due in class on September 12.
Required forum event Tuesday, September 12, 7:30 p.m., McGaw- Azar Nafisi!

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Research Topics –

1. To start our thinking about a research topic, just jot down an idea you have for your own paper. We’ll quickly go around the class on Thursday and share them to avoid conflicts and build collaborations.

Azar Nafisi’s Forum Presentation (Reading Lolita in Tehran) --

1. What was Dr. Nafisi’s primary thesis in her presentation? Did she support it adequately with evidence? Were you persuaded of anything you had not been before?

2. So what was your fancy dinner like, Katie?

Why People Believe Weird Things (pages 273-313) --

1. We’ll start our last general discussion with Shermer’s big question on page 275. He asks concerning various examples of popular but odd ideas: “What is going on in our culture and thinking that leads to such beliefs?” We have his answers. Please be prepared to explain them and add your own.

2. We have touched upon the psychology of belief throughout these first three weeks. Now we will approach it more formally through Shermer’s conceptual framework. Let’s start with the relationship between intelligence and superstition, first defining superstition to our mutual satisfaction.

3. Shermer shows interesting if equivocal results of studies correlating certain belief systems with gender and age? What has been your experience with these questions? What sort of experiments would you design to test the relationships between these variables and belief?

4. Finally, what role does education (at all levels) play in regard to what people believe and why? The answer is not as simple as it may appear.

Remember: Required forum event Tuesday, September 12, 7:30 p.m., McGaw- Azar Nafisi!

I will have your graded first essays back as soon as possible. You have the option of rewriting them and submitting for a new grade. Your final grade is an average of the first and second, as long as the second is higher.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

1. Let’s first outline in class what is now sometimes called the “conventional” account of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Come prepared with a summary of what happened when on that very bad day. This will be just a general story with a timeline.

2. Who is David Ray Griffin? What authority is he using to write a book such as this?

3. Richard Falk writes the foreword to The New Pearl Harbor. Who is he and why would he be considered valuable enough to list on the front cover?

4. There is a lot of reading for this week in this book, so we can only hit the main points in our discussions. Let’s start with Griffin’s analysis of what the “official complicity” of the US government in the 9/11 attacks could mean (page xxi).

5. Flights 11 and 175 eventually crashed into the twin towers. Griffin asks why they were not shot down before they hit the buildings. What is his evidence that they may have been deliberately allowed to proceed?

6. How does Griffin support that hypothesis that it was not a Boeing 757 which struck the Pentagon that 9/11 morning? Please make a simple list of the evidence he uses. We’ll have plenty of time later for alternative accounts.

7. Now step back and assess what sort of images of a government and its expected responses to crises is being employed by Griffin in these analyses? In other words, what does Griffin apparently believe a government should have done in these circumstances?

The research paper topics form distributed in class is due on Tuesday, September 19th at the beginning of class. It will be the basis of a list I will make and distribute in class showing each person’s topic.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Today we are going to directly address some of the primary questions about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11th which come from sources like The New Pearl Harbor and Loose Change. Please read through these questions and be ready to provide answers or be able to describe what sort of information you need for the answer. Each one was posed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

1. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

2. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

3. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

4. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

5. What caused the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that fell hours after the towers)? Could a controlled demolition explain the collapse?

Your rewritten essays are due in class today (Thursday) at 9:30 a.m. Remember, for a new grade you must turn in the first, marked version as well as your revision.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Note that these questions are for Thursday. On Tuesday we meet in our regular room and then walk to the Timken Science Library for a session on library research with Donna Jacobs. We thus have no questions for Tuesday.

The New Pearl Harbor (pages 127-201)

1. One of the most common arguments we hear from conspiracists of all types is that a plot can be revealed by asking “Who benefits?” from the particular event. (A related one is “Follow the money.”) Indeed, such a question may help solve some crimes and sort out some mysteries, but what logical fallacies are inherent in this basic argument?

2. Griffin’s arguments get progressively messier as we get to the end of the book, but we’ll persevere. What is the “Coincidence Theory” he outlines (beginning on page 141) and the evidence he cites against it? (OK, maybe we can’t talk about ALL the “coincidences” he uses, but pick out the most prominent.)

3. Which of the “smoking guns” pointing to Administration “complicity” (by whatever definition Griffin is using by now) do you find most rhetorically compelling? (These start on page 197.) Which would you immediately dismiss as irrelevant or misleading?

4. Finally for this topic, a class exercise: We will play the role of the Bush Administration and run through what planning would be required for us to pull off the 9/11 attacks ourselves and keep a false story in the news and the “true story” hidden. Start thinking now about how many people you need to swear to secrecy! (And don’t forget those Chinese ship owners and crews who have to be ready to cart away the incriminating steel from the World Trade Center.)

Donna Jacobs of the Timken Science Library on campus has completed a library research webpage for our section at: http://library.wooster.edu/sciref/FirstYearSeminar/fyswilson.php. You will want to bookmark this page on your computers and use it as soon as possible to explore your research paper topics and the likely references you will be using.

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Why People Believe Weird Things (pages 125-172)

1. Michael Shermer’s section on creationism begins with Duane T. Gish, the now retired lion of the “Creation Science” movement. Using web resources, tell us who Duane Gish is and why he is considered a prominent symbol of American creationism?

2. “Does all this mean that the biblical creation and re-creation stories are false?” Shermer asks on page 130. Be prepared to discuss the role of myth in our culture and why the answer to this rhetorical question cannot be simple.

3. Shermer develops a “three-tiered taxonomy” of world views about religion and science. There is the Same Worlds Model, the Separate Worlds Model, and the Conflicting Worlds Model. How are these distinguished? Are there any ways by which we can test these models?

4. Starting on page 141, Shermer describes philosophically-based arguments about creationism. Choose one and be prepared to discuss it.

5. The last portion of our reading in Shermer’s book prepares us for Thursday’s discussion of “Intelligent Design” and American culture. What have been the general anti-evolution (or pro-creation) strategies taken by creationists in school systems and courts? How have they been countered over the many years of conflict?

Second Essay Assignment (due at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 3) -- [repeat]

This week you are reviewing a website produced by the Creation Truth Foundation in preparation for next week’s material. The web address is: http://www.creationtruth.com/ Your job is to describe the mission of this foundation, the perspective it takes on the evolution issue (it will be very obvious!), the ways in which it makes its arguments, and the effectiveness of its rhetoric (including illustrations, web design, and other features as well as its argumentation). Do this without extended quotations from the website. (You can certainly have some short quotations, but you should be able to paraphrase the primary points.) This essay should be 4-5 pages long, double-spaced and with reasonable margins. No formal citations are necessary. No research is required but, as with your first essay, it is always good to be informed about your topic before you begin to write. This essay is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 3. Papers turned in late that day will receive a significant grade penalty; papers will not be accepted after Tuesday.

Thursday, October 5, 2006

Memorandum Opinion, U.S. District Court, Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al.; Judge John E. Jones, December 20, 2005 --

1. At the very beginning of this long document is the resolution by the Dover Area School Board passed on October 18, 2004:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

This is what started this famous case. Be prepared in class to dissect this statement in detail, sorting out the motivation behind the resolution and the reaction to it. The subject is huge, of course, so confine yourself to just what these words mean and symbolize.

2. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Another big topic, but nevertheless summarize in your words what this means (or has been interpreted to mean) when it comes to teaching evolution in American public schools.

3. On page 24 of the decision, Professor John Haught is cited as explaining to the court that the Intelligent Design argument is actually a very old theological proof of the existence of God. This gives us a good chance to define what Intelligence Design is and how it can or cannot be distinguished from traditional creationism. Your observations will come from throughout this opinion.

4. On page 38, Judge Jones concludes: “After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow, we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion.” Do you agree? How would you feel as a ninth-grader in the Dover schools hearing this disclaimer for the first time?

5. Here are the critical words from the conclusion:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Based on this reading and what you’ve learned and discussed earlier, do you agree? Why or why not?

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Michael Ruse Wooster Forum Presentation (“Can Darwinians Also Be Christians?”) on October 10

1. Please summarize Dr. Ruse’s lecture in a single thesis statement a sentence or two long. How did he support this thesis? Did he do so effectively?

2. Characterize the style and tone of the questions asked of Dr. Ruse after his talk. (Yes, you have to stay for the questions!) Did they mostly come from people with fixed positions on the issues? Or were most questions from people who seemed to still be searching or neutral?

The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of The Kennedy Assassination (p. xxiii-87)

1. You know the standard beginning-a-book question: Who is this author Larry M. Sturdivan? What is his authority on the topic? Note also who wrote the Foreword and, curiously, who wrote the Introduction. Try to place these men in the confusing history and politics of JFK assassination researchers.

2. By page 22 Sturdivan has summed up the basic account of the assassination, with plenty of horrific details. As we did with 9/11, let’s also establish a timeline of the events.

3. What was the Warren Commission and what were its conclusions?

4. What was the task of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1978. What was their conclusion in the JFK case?

5. Conspiracy theories began to sprout on the day of the JFK assassination. We’ll end our preliminary discussion with a list of the top JFK conspiracy theories which developed in the last 43 years.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Michael Ruse Wooster Forum Presentation (“Can Darwinians Also Be Christians?”) on October 10

(We’ll discuss your observations and the questions distributed for Tuesday’s class.)

The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of The Kennedy Assassination (p. xxiii-87)

1. Your turn! For today I’d like each of you to come up with at least one discussion question of your own. It should be designed to provoke discourse, so don’t make it about some factual issue or observation. Make your questions relevant to this week’s reading.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of The Kennedy Assassination (p. xxiii-87)

1. Now we’re deep into the physical evidence, but it is in these details that crimes are solved and conspiracies either confirmed or debunked. Let’s start with Oswald’s rifle: “Crude, dangerous and inaccurate” or “accurate, lethal, and well suited”? Why?

2. What is the sound evidence (essentially the number of shots and from which directions they were perceived as coming from) and how is it complicated by physics and eyewitness accounts?

3. The famous “magic bullet” which wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally is a centerpiece of JFK conspiracy theories. What are the issues here? Why, for example, has the bullet been seen as mysterious? What are Sturdivan’s solutions to the problems?

4. The most dramatic footage used in Oliver Stone’s JFK and other assassination films is that of President Kennedy’s movement backwards into the car seat while supposedly being shot from behind. This, along with the “exit wound”, is probably the most successful “evidence” for a conspiracy presented to the public. Let’s sort out the gruesome physics and biology behind this issue.

5. The physical and eyewitness case against Oswald for the murder of Officer Tippit seems very clear. Why, then, do many conspiracists try to show that Oswald was as innocent of this crime as that of killing the President?

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of The Kennedy Assassination

1. Today we finish the JFK assassination as a discussion topic, so many of our questions will be summary in nature. Through this reading and our debates, what have you learned about the reliability of eyewitness testimony? Have you changed your mind on how much credence to give “first person accounts”?

2. After completing the reading about the autopsy performed on President Kennedy, do you find the evidence of the bullet trajectories compelling? Why or why not?

3. Now for the supposed “second gunman” on the grassy knoll. How does the physical evidence support or falsify this hypothesis? Contrast what we know from the various physical analyses with the eyewitness reports.

4. Sturdivan’s last chapter summarizes his view of the various conspiracy theories about the JFK killing. He has certainly supported his conclusions with the pages of details you’ve now read. Are you compelled or not by his arguments? Have you changed your mind in any way after completing this book?

Third Essay Assignment (due at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 26)

It is now your chance to create an argument addressing the question “Who Really Killed President John F. Kennedy and Why?”. This essay should be 4-5 pages long, double-spaced and with reasonable margins. No formal citations are necessary, but tell me in the text where you are getting information. (For example, “The report of the Warren Commission makes it plain that …”) No additional research is required, but please freely use your textbooks and any other sources we have had in class or on the Web. Imagine your audience as the readers of the campus newspaper, and that you are trying to persuade them of the value of your informed opinion. As always I am not concerned with your conclusions but rather the evidence and argumentation you use to support them. You can take the “conventional” position that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman or one of the many conspiracy theories (or develop your own!). I simply want your authentic argument, along with your reasons.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Denying History (p. xi-97)

1. Before we discuss the complex topic of Holocaust Denial, we’ll start with a review of the history of Nazi Germany and its times. Each of you will volunteer for (or be assigned if you’re not quick enough!) one of the following topics to briefly introduce to the class on Tuesday: (A short paragraph for your topic.)

What was the situation in Germany immediately after WWI ended?
How did the Nazi Party begin?
Who was Adolf Hitler prior to his becoming a Nazi?
What was the political situation in the United States in the 1920s?
What was the political situation in the United States in the 1930s?
What was the relationship between the Nazis and Communists prior to their taking power?
How and when did the Nazis take power in Germany?
What was the political situation in the United Kingdom in the 1930s?
What was the political situation in France in the 1930s?
What was the political situation in the Soviet Union in the 1920s?
What was happening in Asia in the 1930s?
What was the relationship between Hitler and Stalin prior to the outbreak of WWII?
How did WWII begin in Europe?
How did the United States enter WWII?
What was the relationship between the Soviet Union and Germany after June 1941?
What was the political situation in France after their occupation by Germany?
How and when did WWII end in Europe?
How and when did WWII end in Asia?

2. We will all address the most difficult topic: What were the basic elements of the Holocaust in Europe? In other words, who were the victims, who were the perpetrators, and in what ways was it accomplished? We will then be prepared to discuss the denial of these events by various groups and individuals over the past three decades.

Annotated Bibliography Assignment (due in class on Tuesday, October 31) – [Repeat]

Please turn in to me a listing of all the bibliographic items (books, articles, films, etc.) that you plan to use in your research paper. After each listing (done in the required bibliographic style), please add one line describing the reference and how you plan to use it in your paper. (This would be something like: “This book provides critical first-hand accounts of the Jersey Devil, so I plan to use it as an original source.”) List only the references you actually have in hand. This bibliography is graded (see syllabus).

 

Thursday, November 2, 2006

Denying History (p. xi-97)

1. As usual with our textbooks we want to know who the authors are and where their authority resides on the particular topic. We know Michael Shermer well by now, but who is his co-author Alex Grobman?

2. Arthur Hertzberg wrote the foreword to Denying History. Who was he? (He died earlier this year.) Google will be active tonight!

3. The introduction begins with him, so we might as well also: Who is Ernst Zündel? He’ll serve as our initial type specimen of a Holocaust Denier, but you will later see many types.

4. The first chapter of this book is an excellent discussion of the “free speech issue” and how it relates to this controversial subject and others. (I love the wonderful exchange with Sir Thomas More in the epigraph at the beginning.) We have not addressed this topic directly in this class, but it underlies all that we are exploring. What are the limits of free speech? Think of this in terms of contemporary issues as well, including the violence over “depictions of Mohammed” and those who protest at the funerals of American soldiers.

5. “The paradox of history is resolved on the third tier …” (page 30). Be prepared to discuss these aspects of “historical science” and answer the question, “How do we know what happened in the past?”

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Denying History (p. 99-197)

1. We’re going to watch an unusual film about a Holocaust denier on Tuesday, combining it with the readings for our longer discussion on Thursday. The film is Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (1999). Your only assignment for Tuesday is to look up reviews of this film before we watch it in class.

Thursday, November 9, 2006

Denying History (p. 99-197)

1. Our discussion and the film has set us back a bit on our preparation questions, so we’ll bring in all those which we did not answer last week for this last day on Holocaust Denial. We will spend the period exploring this topic without any additional readings or videos. We’ve certainly seen enough evidence by now.

Remember to sign up for a time with me for registration advising this week.

Fourth Essay Assignment (due at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 14)

This will be your fourth and last essay. Can you believe it? Once again you have considerable choice in how you approach the topic –

Visit the website “http://www.abduct.com/” and you’ll see just how seriously many people take the concept of “alien abduction”. Your job is to write an article for a popular magazine (such as Time or Newsweek) assessing this phenomenon: How many people believe they have been abducted? What are the typical abduction experiences? What are the characteristics of the alien abductors? Can the abductees be characterized in any particular ways? Use any other websites you wish in your research.

This essay should be 4-5 pages long, double-spaced and with reasonable margins. No formal citations are necessary, but tell me in the text where you are getting information. You do not want to include long web addresses or footnotes. Do it as a magazine would by crediting a source like “the website of the Institute of Alien Engineers”. An interested reader can Google such a name and find the web address.

 

Thursday, November 16, 2006

1. First, please describe the typical crop circle: what it looks like, how it appears to have been constructed, how large it is, etc.

2. One of the most interesting pseudoscientific explanations of crop circles (certainly one of the most complex) involves “ion plasma vortices”. What are these? What is the evidence cited to use them as causal mechanisms for crop circles? Do you see any problems with this explanation?

3. Even the most ardent crop circle enthusiast has to admit that at least some crop circles are hoaxes made by clever people in the night. How, then, does such a “cereologist” attempt to sort out the “genuine” crop circles from the faked?

4. Most of the recent crop circles have fascinating designs. Putting aside the alien explanation for awhile, what do you think motivates hoaxers to produce such phenomena?

5. If you were to make a crop circle this evening, what design would you create? Would you wish it to be an obvious human-created pattern or one that resembles something more otherworldly?

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Our First and Only Class Debate!

Proposition: Extraterrestrial life forms have visited Earth in historic times and continue to visit Earth today.

Pro side: Maisie, Katie, Henry, Alex, Corey
Con side: Chris Walton, Kevin, Liz, Matt, Priscilla
Jury: Chris Weston, Ashley, Meret, Kenny, Elissa

1. Each side has 15 minutes to present its best case, citing evidence (or lack of it) and make consistent arguments. Each side should elect a leader as the primary spokesperson, but everyone contributes to the presentation. The Pro side will go first. I expect the teams to meet sometime before the debate to plan strategy and gather resources.

2. Each side receives 10 minutes for rebuttal. Again, the Pro side goes first.

3. The jury then discusses the issues among its members and presents its decision within 10 minutes, again citing the evidence it found compelling.

Student presentation schedule:

Thursday, November 30, 9:30 a.m. – Corey, Chris Walton, Kevin, Liz, Matt
Tuesday, December 5, 9:30 a.m. – Kenny, Priscilla, Chris Weston, Ashley, Meret
Tuesday, December 5, 7:30 p.m. – Maisie, Katie, Henry, Alex, Elissa

Each student will have 15 minutes to present, including time allotted for questions. You want to think now about particular handouts or other props you want to use.
Remember, no class on Tuesday, November 28. I’m returning from California that morning.