As part of my Psychology degree, i’m taking a module on Parapsychology. My tutor for this is most definetly a Believer, capital b. His lectures so far have been pretty, well, slanted towards ESP being quite clearly existent. Now, I’d have no problem with this if it was the result of reasoned analysis of the subject, but that doesn’t appear to be what’s going on. He also seems to have something of a dislike bordering on hatred for ESP skeptics, and he’s ad hominem’d them pretty much any time they come up.
Anyway, that’s not the main problem. The main problem is that, as part of coursework for Psych., you (usually) need to look at previous studies and research and evaluate it; say what it shows and what it suggests for the general subject. And we need to say if there are any problems with it.
You may see where this is going. My tutor (as well as another lecturer at my uni.) has done a good amount of research in this area, which means I may have to use a study by one of them in my coursework. Which means i’m going to have to point out the flaws in it. And, at least IMHO, the flaws are a lot bigger than he says they are.
So here’s my dilemma; do I just do a good job of pointing out flaws from my perspective, and risk that i’ll get a lower mark because my evaluation is so different from his? Or do I use studies by them and be make them look better than I think they are? Or ignore them altogether?
Do you think you could get away with simply writing up both the pro- and anti- sides equally and not taking a stand yourself?
On the other hand, you need to ask yourself: Do you really want an “A” (or whatever you Brits use) if it means shoving your nose up your prof’s idiotic pro-paranormal ass? I’d suggest writing up Susan Blackmore’s profound evolution from heavy pro-paranormalist to enlightened skeptic based on her own rigorous experiments and refusal to lie to herself.
I think it’s less ego and more him being actually convinced, though both have the same problems. I’d be happy to use other people’s work; i’m just worried that if I don’t reference his or the other guy’s work, that i’ll get a lower mark for not considering them.
I can probably point out flaws in both sides of the argument; it’s just that he seems to see it as a “Paranormalists have flaws but are right, skeptics are all bastards” approach, so I don’t know if even a compromise would get the higher marks.
He literally seems to despise Blackmore, so I think i’m just going to have to avoid talking about her or her work at all.
I do really want a high grade, though; this is my last year, so it’s all counting towards my final degree.
So basically what you want to do is ‘brown nose’, but you don’t want to be too obvious.
I have no knowledge in this area, apart from the fact that there is very little statistically significant knowledge.
Personally I would invent a structure for validating ‘knowledge’, something like micro events for twins reporting the same flash card and macro events for Uri Geller detecting emerald sources.
You could build in a sub plot, questioning whether unscientifically observed phenomena should be discarded. (That is a neat one as it is effectively discarding the unexplained).
Postulate a structure for research, call it a cube because that is easier to visualize than something with four dimensions, and slot things into your vicariously invented axes.
Personally I am sure that there are things we don’t understand, and it strikes me as likely that others have similar doubts.
If you attempt to map the known and unknown, then the chances are that you’ll come up with something that will appeal.
Personally, I’d just treat it like I did any class where the prof was obviously insane or incompetent–as a glorified fiction-writing class. Those tended to be fun because I was free to just make shit up as needed. As long as it strokes your prof’s worldviews and you’re not too obvious about it, it can be a great deal of fun. I mean, since it’s only an optional module it’s not like it’s something you’re going to be slapping on your CV at all…
Sometimes it can be fun to just play make-believe and see if you can prove there’s werewolves out there, even if it is just a load of hooey.
Well, one practical argument against ejecting all intellectual integrity and personal ethics is that if you ever want a real job or academic career, your prospective employer might learn what a whore and/or buffoon you are and pass you over.
You might point out the American Academy of Sciences viewpoint on parapsychology: “despite over 150 years of research, proof of actual psychi powers or parapsychological phenomena remains lacking”.
i’d shun this course-the professor sounds like a moonbat.