Get Students to Do Field Reports

/

By David Landes, American University in Dubai

Every week my students must post to our course discussion board a field report: 1-2 paragraphs articulating how a course concept of their choosing applies to something in their life.  They report on what they learned, its meaning, and the ideas it sparked.

Doing a field report every week gets students used to seeing course material in their world and how it affects their life. The habit makes them look for connections, rather than having me tell them. Field reports also give me a weekly stream of input on how the students are engaging the material, and it gives me ideas on how to adapt my curriculum to the various ways students absorb our class sessions.

We make field reports visible to other students but not to the wider public. Having students write semi-publically has helped improve their writing. Their reports tend to be more sincere, funny, and clear-voiced than I see in any other student writing.  I suspect this improvement comes from the combination of freedom in expressing their discoveries, and the the subtle demands of a peer audience.

David B. Landes is assistant professor of oral rhetoric at the American University in Dubai. He helped make the Argument Lab while teaching the applied humanities at MIT and Stanford. His extensive background as a jazz drummer and project consultant give his engaging style a multi-flavored freshness. His Ph.D. dissertation, earned at the University of Pittsburgh, is A Theory Of Attention for Communication.

More details at http://www.pitt.edu/~dbl3/ including David's CV, resume, music experience, and more.

Logic vs. Creationism

/

How do you judge an argument without knowing all the facts? Try applying logic. (Chapter 14 of Thank You for Arguing can help you.) 

Take this argument: Bill Nye the Science guy recently debated creationist Ken Ham. BuzzFeed asked some of the attending creationists to write notes to the other side. I'll deal with the logic one at a time, keeping the original spelling intact for the sake of verisimilitude. 

Are you scared of a divine creator?

Ad hominem, an attack on the opponent's character. Being scared of a divine creator is practically recommended in the Bible. Besides, many believers in a divine creator study actual science.

Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature? i.e. trees created with rings...Adam created as an adult?

Trees created with rings? Um, sure. That's not illogical per se. But the argument is a Straw Man, which sets up a weak version of an opposing point in order to shoot it down. You could also call this fallacy a Red Herring, which distracts the audience to make it forget what the main issue is about. The debate isn't over the logic of creationism; it's over the science.

Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?

Fallacy of definition, also known as a misapplied axiom. Newton's Second Law says that entropy won't decrease in an isolated system. Since the Earth isn't an isolated system, the definition doesn't apply. You could also call false analogy on this argument, since evolution and entropy in physics are related only in a metaphorical sense.

How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?

False choice! This woman is assuming that evolutionists must not believe in a god; or, rather, in her capital-G God. 

If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk such theories?

Red herring again. Weren't we talking about evolution vs. creationism? And, if you got past the ninth grade, presumably you heard of quantum physics, which don't "debunk" Newton but, you know, layer a different set of physical laws that apply to that non-isolated system we call the universe. Here we have a fallacy called many questions, a shotgun marriage of assumptions. 

What about noetics?

What about them? Are you talking about neoplatonism, which in extreme versions argues that everything (or nothing) is in our heads? This goes beyond the red herring to what I call "Squirrel!" (See the movie "Up".)

Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

You could call "objective meaning" an oxymoron or a paradox since most definitions of meaning are subjective. But you could also call this fallacy wishful thinking or the necessity fallacy. We need meaning, and creationism provides that better than evolution. Therefore, creationism must be true. Many top physicists commit this fallacy, so don't feel bad.

If God did not create everything, how did the single-celled organism originate? By chance?

Rhetorical question, though not a bad one. Scientists believe that the first single-celled organism was created from carbon-based soup and some, um, energy. (Hey, I'm a rhetorician, not a biologist.) The fact that it happened at a particular time could be chance, could be God, take your pick. In any case we have another red herring. God's creation of the first single-celled organism would not disprove evolution. And, hey, creationists: please stop assuming scientists are godless. Some are, some aren't.

I believe in the Big Bang Theory...God said BANG! and it happened!

Not sure which translation of the Jewish Scripture has God saying "Bang," but I'd like a copy. Many questions again. The debate is over evolution, people! Though I'm sensing that the disbelief here is over science in general. Is God also preventing climate change and vaccinations?

Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God-believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the idea of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?

Many, many questions. The fallacy of association is certainly going on here, lumping together groups of people who may not share the same beliefs. And, dude, your science teacher with the deely-boppers coming out of her head? That was just Halloween, man!

There is no inbetween...the only one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for "official proof." 

Here we have an interesting syntactical fallacy, lack of antecedent. The "only one" implies that only one pre-human has been found, but the pronoun allows us to make all kinds of wild assumptions. Actually, numerous pre-humans have been found. As for "official proof," that's a false definition. There are no "officials," only scientists. And a single bone can point to a new species. Happens all the time. I do like "There is no inbetween." Nice song lyric.

Does metamorphosis help support evolution?

Here we have the fallacy of...I have no idea what you're talking about. Rocks? Kafka?

If evolution is a theory (like creationism) or the Bible why then is Evolution taught as fact.

Definition fallacy again. Was science even taught in your school? A scientific theory is not the same as a Sherlock theory or a Moses and the Burning Bush Theory. (Wait. That's not a theory at all. Nor is the Bible a "theory." The Bible is a sacred text or a work of literature, depending on your point of view.) A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of repeatedly confirmed facts. It is not a guess, or a whodunit or a wish or a prayer. It's an explanation of facts based on observation or repeatable experimental data. Look it up. Please, please look up "scientific theory." 

Because science by definition is a "theory"--not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?

Ah, the version of the definition fallacy that's closely related to the missing antecedent. "By definition"? Whose definition? Your definition is the exact opposite of science. Oh, please, woman holding the note, please tell me that you don't have offspring or that they'll run for Congress someday.

What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

Red herring. Evolutionary theory does not depend on "increasing information." On the other hand, if you count every new species or mutation as a recombination of data--and you should--then genetic information increases all the time. And the mechanism is evolution. There's an interesting rhetorical tactic in this question, by the way: skotison, which is Greek for "darken it." Fancy language and syntax makes the writer sound intelligent while obscuring her point.

What purpose do you think we are here for if you do not believe in Salvation?

Red Herring. Squirrels all over the place. Also a weird kind of tribal thinking. If you believe in evolution, you're not one of us. If you're not one of us, then you must not believe in salvation. If you don't believe in salvation, you should be burned at the...I mean, your life has no purpose.

Why have we found only one "Lucy," when we have found more than 1 of everything else?

Hey, how about buying an updated textbook and reading about all the discoveries made since 1974? In any case, this argument constitutes the ignorance as proof fallacy. The lack of evidence is proof it doesn't exist.

Can you believe in the "Big Bang" without faith?

Rhetorical question. Yes. I would guess that most atheists believe in the Big Bang. Does that answer your rhetorical question? (I'm asking that rhetorically.)

How can you look at the world and not believe someone Created/Thought of it? It's Amazing!

Yes, it is! But awesomeness is proof only of your emotion. This is called the pathetic fallacy, from the Greek pathos, meaning "emotion." Nonetheless, many evolutionary scientists have that same feeling of awesomeness, and it makes many of them believe in a god. Evolution is amazing, too!

Relating to the Big Bang Theory...Where did that exploding star come from?

Current Big Bang theory doesn't posit an exploding star but rather a tiny bit of matter tunneling through...again, I'm not a scientist. But there's a fallacy of definition here. Before you challenge a theory, make sure you know what the theory is. And where does that bit o' matter come from? Read Jim Holt's great book, Why Does the World Exist? You won't get an answer, but he offers a great many very cool guesses.

If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

Many questions again. We didn't come from monkeys. And if we did come from monkeys, that wouldn't preclude the continuing existence of monkeys. A mama monkey could just possibly produce monkey descendants and freakish, naked, giant ape descendants who believe in creationism. Makes me shudder to think about it.

 

 

 

Socrates Interviews Boehner

/

While Socrates was no rhetorician--he was into dialectic, which discovers truth instead of persuades--his Socratic method helps inoculate you from manipulation. How? By focusing on the definition of terms.  

Imagine if Socrates  interviewed the people responsible for shutting down the government and threatening our nation’s credit. I took actual Boehner from his interview yesterday with George Stephanopoulos. The Socrates quotes are imagined.

Send me an interview clip if you want Socrates to pick on someone else, especially a Democrat.

Boehner: The House has passed four bills to keep the government open and to provide fairness to the American people under ObamaCare.

Socrates: A worthy endeavor! I am eager to know more about fairness. How would you define fairness, and how does fairness open the government?

Boehner: Listen. ObamaCare is a law that’s gonna raise the cost of health insurance premiums and make it almost impossible for employers to hire new people.

Socrates: So you define fairness as having to do with the cost of things, and with employers hiring new people. If everything cost less, and employers hired new people, then there would be fairness and the government would open. Would you say that the government is an employer?

Boehner: [ObamaCare] is a law that the American people do not want and cannot afford.

Socrates: Ah, so fairness is not about the cost of things or employment after all. It is about popularity and affordability. If laws were more popular and affordable, then the government would be open? Frankly, John, I fail to see the connection between fairness as you define it and government opening back up.

Boehner: Why wouldn’t the president provide fairness to the American people? He’s given exemptions and waivers to all kinds of groups of people, but he hasn’t given one to the American people, who are gonna suffer under this law.

Socrates: I sense that your definition of fairness has changed yet again. It now appears to mean treating groups of people the same as the American people. Who are these “groups of people” to whom you refer? They are not from another country, are they?

Boehner: They give big businesses a waiver. They give unions a waiver.

Socrates: Ah, so those "groups of people" are Americans! If businesses were given a waiver, doesn’t that allow them to hire new people? So isn’t that fair, and won’t that open the government again?

Boehner: We’re interested in having a conversation in how we open the government and how we begin to pay our bills.

Socrates: What do you mean by “conversation”? A negotiation, or a dialectic over an amphora of wine? How will this conversation resolve the crisis? Personally, I have found that too much wine among enemies can lead to violence as easily as to friendship. But what do I know? I am interested the second topic of your proposed conversation, about paying bills. Raising the debt limit allows the paying of bills. If Congress simply voted to raise the debt limit, wouldn’t that allow the government to pay its bills?

Boehner: So it’s my way or the highway. That’s what [the Democrats are] saying. Complete surrender, and then we’ll talk to you.

Socrates: You misunderstand me, John. We are having a conversation now, are we not? I simply wondered why a conversation is necessary to allow the government to pay its bills. Isn’t this simply a matter of raising the debt ceiling to permit the payment of bills Congress has already approved?

Boehner: I and my members decided that the threat of ObamaCare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

Socrates: You did not take a stand before this? You opposed the Affordable Care Act when it was first proposed. Or was that opposition not a “stand”? Does your opposition become a “stand” only when Congress passes that bill, the president signs it into law, and the Supreme Court declares it constitutional? And tell me more about the “threat” of ObamaCare? Does the law threaten fairness? I remain unclear about your definition of fairness, and how the lack of fairness is keeping the government shut down. Or is a shutdown more fair than an open government?

Boehner: I’ve made it clear to my colleagues. I don’t want to shut the government down! We voted to keep the government open. But providing fairness to the American people under ObamaCare is all we’re asking for.

Socrates: I admire your desire to bestow fairness upon the people of America, John. Before you do that, I hope you discover what fairness is. Ask an oracle. Do it quickly, though, so that your fairness can open the government.

Jay Heinrichs

 

Use the Book to Flip Your Classroom

/

By David Landes, American University in Dubai

I taught an argument class where before each class session, students read one chapter and completed an  assignment, applying what they read to real-world situations. We spent class time sharing and critiquing the students' work. The social pressures of speaking in public have a funny way of making people push themselves; I felt free to help, rather than push, my students.

This is the "flipped classroom," in which the text does the teaching, classwork happens at home, and homework happens in the classroom. When Jay Heinrichs teaches the students, you're free to focus on helping each student personalize the material and apply it toward your course ends.

Consult the Argument Lab at the end of the book to get assignment ideas and inspire your own. Jay and I would love to hear what activities, exercises, and assignments you come up with. Tell us what you come up with!

What is the flipped classroom? Click here.

David B. Landes is assistant professor of oral rhetoric at the American University in Dubai. He helped make the Argument Lab while teaching applied humanities at MIT and Stanford. His extensive background as a jazz drummer and project consultant give his engaging style a multi-flavored freshness. His Ph.D. dissertation, written at the University of Pittsburgh, is A Theory Of Attention for Communication. Details at http://www.pitt.edu/~dbl3/ including David's CV, resume, music experience, and more.