EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE AREA
COURSE MATERIAL

BACK TO: EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE AREA

Sense and Nonsense

Instructor: Dr. Charles E. Hornbeck

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Sense and Nonsense: Inductive reasoning approached through the study of modern pseudo-scientific writings on topics such as extraterrestrial visitors, the Bermuda Triangle, astrology, and psi. Emphasizes criteria for acceptable hypotheses, controls for observation and experiment, and measures against neglecting evidence.

Note carefully the emphasis on analysis and evaluation. This is not a course in the literary genre of nonsense. It is not designed to legitimize pseudo-science as a respectable genre either of literature or of thought. Feeling wonder and fascination about the subject matter is normal and lawful, but the final aim is logical and epistemic evaluation.

GOALS OF THIS COURSE

a. to acquaint students with several popular belief-systems that are often considered to be pseudo-scientific
b. to increase their ability to think critically about those and similar purportedly scientific claims by

(1) reflecting on the natures of truth and of knowledge,
(2) becoming aware of the structure of experimental reasoning, and
(3) becoming familiar with the criteria of an adequate explanation.

COURSE ACTIVITIES

1. Critical Reading
Critical reading is an intensive activity. It involves reading and re-reading with definite questions for which you seek answers. Written tasks will be distributed to direct your reading of the text and SI articles. They also form the framework for class participation.
NOTE: You must be diligent in getting the SI articles all read on time to avoid a mass invasion of the periodicals room in search of the same article. Consider copying articles in advance and keeping the copies for subsequent review. You are responsible for reading all the articles, even if you do not write them up as your S-papers.

2. Writing Tasks
All three types of papers (S papers, EC papers, and AM papers) described below must satisfy these requirements:
• typed or word-processed
• 10-12 pt standard font
• double spaced
• 8.5x11 paper
• stapled if multi-paged -- not paper clipped nor folded at a corner
• your name (last name first) at upper left
• “Phil 211” below your name
• code (e.g. S4, AM5, etc) upper right: letters will be S, AM, or EC; numbers from Q column of Schedule
• compliance with the “Acceptable Quotations” statement
• compliance with academic honesty (in Student Handbook, Policies sections)
Papers that do not meet minimal standards of college-level writing will be returned ungraded. If your paper is returned ungraded, I’d advise you to meet with Writing Center personnel to see if you can avoid similar problems on future written work. Amelioration for unaccepted papers can come only from doing an acceptable EC Paper thereafter.
Ideally returned within a week's time, graded papers should be saved, if only to correct the instructor's occasional misrecording of points. If a graded paper is returned when you are absent, look for it in the box outside my office door.

A. Required Writing Tasks (S-papers)
There are 6 required S-papers, based partly on reading assignments of articles in the Skeptical Inquirer, a journal in the periodical collection of the Library. Each paper should make a succinct summary of the article, informing the reader of the main points and purposes of the article. It should also, within a connected and flowing composition, address the questions presented in the relevant SQ. Finally, it should demonstrate your clear understanding of the relevant concepts explained in the text and in class. Two S-papers (you choose which ones) are required in each of third of the course, as defined by the exam dates; they are due on the dates shown for the articles on the Schedule.
B. Optional Writing Assignments (EC and AM papers)
Optional papers include AM Papers (those for Absence Makeup) and one EC Paper (for extra credit). AM Papers are complete responses to the TQ assigned for the day you are absent. They serve only to replace the 2.5 points lost by an absence.
The EC Paper, except for its being the third paper within one third of the course, is to be exactly like an S-Paper. The EC Paper has the same value and same requirements as a regular S-Paper, and is due at class time as indicated on the Schedule. A late EC paper will not be accepted, except when the lateness is due to a verified excused and unforeseeable absence. The maximal lateness is one period beyond the termination of the illness or extenuating condition

3. Participation in Discussion
Most class days involve critical discussion based on the TQ and/or SQ. You should be ready to discuss and to comment on other student responses. Usually you should have the textbook or copies of (or notes on) the SI article to consult during these discussions. Beginning week 3, I will record a more or less daily mark (0, .5, or 1) for your participation. (You have the responsibility of identifying yourself by name when you participate, at least until you are sure that I know your name.) As part of the course grade, I will count your best mark from each counted week plus two other high marks.
Some days I will also present some brief video clips related to the current reading assignments. They also will be discussed. Although the clips will not directly be involved in any of the 3 tests, your informed references to them will be creditable.

4. Exams
The exams will be short essay tests of your understanding of, and your ability to explain and apply, the concepts explicated in the text and in the SI articles. The final one is comprehensive.

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
PH211: Sense and Nonsense

Read assignments and prepare Qs before the meetings indicated. Papers on the Skeptical Inquirer articles are due on dates indicated, and they should employ concepts and terms from the textbook, as they are progressively introduced.

SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Sample of TQs (questions on the textbook) and SQs (questions on Skeptical Inquirer articles)

T2 (pages 13-30)
- Offer clear explanations of these concepts, explained in the text:
a) paradigm, anomaly, and paradigm shift;
b) necessary truths, laws of thought, (including the law of non-contradiction, of identity, and of excluded middle)
c) logical impossibility, physical impossibility, physical laws
d) reductio ad absurdum, appeal to ignorance, fallacy of composition.

T3 (pages 13-30, again)
- Construct arguments or explanations which violate each of the five principles of rational thought stated in the solid gray boxes. Don’t be surprised if the denial of these principles turn out to be background assumptions for your arguments.
- There are problems with the notion of precognitive perception (not to be confused with empirical inference about the future). State the argument about its being physically impossible because of the nature of causality. State the argument about its being logically impossible, because of the meaning of "know" or "cognition." Finally, state the arguments some have used to refute the two preceding arguments. (And here is the catch: make the above arguments valid.)

S9 Three Skeptics’ Debate Tools Examined. SI.26.1 Jan/Feb 02, 37-41
- The justification of Occam’s Razor has involved a metaphysical claim, an inductive claim, and a third claim contrary to both of the preceding. Explain these notions and the arguments against the first two. Be very clear as to why it is important to be aware of our ignorance and how Occams’s Razor helps in this awareness without promoting a lazy skepticism (contentment with our ignorance). Then discuss whether the text’s discussion (pages 178-180) of the Razor needs any correction in light of Caso’s article.
- The burden of proof principle is formulated in two quite different ways before the third and more satisfactory one is expressed. Explain carefully how these three differ and what considerations make the first two unacceptable. Then review the textbook’s discussion of the burden of proof principle (page 19) and discuss whether, why, and how it should be changed.
- What seems extraordinary about Sagan’s Balance? When “extraordinary” is correctly understood, why is the Balance a tautology, and how does the Balance show that the quest for knowledge is not a subjective and personal venture?
- Why is it that, even when armed with these three tools, correctly understood, a skeptic has difficulty in persuading “believers” when they are wrong in their beliefs? Explain how it can be that a skeptic may not have an ‘open mind1’ and yet does have an ‘open mind2,’ whereas a “believer” may have neither an ‘open mind1’ nor an ‘open mind2.’

S12 Homeopathy: Is It Medicine? SI:12.1 Fall 1987
- What is the theory (the laws of similars and of infinitesimals) behind homeopathy? Check the etymology of the word and explain what it means in the context of Hahnemann’s practice. What are 3X and 5C solutions? What happens when a 12C dilution is reached? And how could one detect the presence of a “spiritual essence” in a 12C dilution?
- Given: a pond surrounded by a meadow in which grows St.-Johns’s-Wort; rain dissolves chemicals from the Wort before collecting in the pond; the chemicals are a homeopathic treatment for depression; the pond is the water supply for the town of Upper Sandusky. What predictions would follow that would test the homeopathic hypothesis?
- Given: the homeopathic “law of infinitesimals” is that the greater the dilution of an agent, the stronger its effect; that the effect of drinking 3 ounces of 90 proof bourbon is that I get drunk. What predictions follow that would test the law?
- Describe a “proving.” Discuss and support answers to these questions: Are provings case studies? clinical tests? controlled for social desirability bias? for experimenter bias?
- What issues or problems are there in determining whether homeopathic drugs are properly labeled, safe, and effective?

READING MATERIAL

Textbook:

• Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, 3d ed. 2002

VIDEOS USED IN COURSE

• The Bermuda Triangle: Uncovering the Mystery of a Watery Graveyard. Videotape. NOVA, Adventures in Science. WGBH. 1976.
• Beyond Science? Videotape. Scientific American Frontiers, # 802. 1997.
• Kidnapped By UFOs? The True Story of Alien Abductions. Videotape. Directed by Denise Dilani. NOVA, Adventures in Science. WGBH.
• Secrets of the Psychics. Videotape. NOVA. WGBH. 1993.