Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Hoaxes In The Classroom PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Bob Blaskiewicz   

The JREF is proud to announce a new series on randi.org featuring articles by skeptical teachers exploring critical thinking in the classroom, using the investigation of the paranormal, fringe science, and pseudoscience to teach methods of science and reason. We welcome feedback, discussion, and further suggestions from educators and parents in the comments section. If you would like to be involved in this project, please contact Bob Blaskiewicz.

In my career teaching writing to incoming college students, I am lucky to have spent three years at Georgia Tech, where innovation in the classroom is valued. But even in this environment, I’m still a bit of an evil imp. When one professor had students reconstruct the Thoreau's cabin from Walden, I tried to think of a way that students could recreate a historical event for a final project in a rock n’ roll class I was considering. When I took the project to my boss, recreating the Beatles’ final concert on the roof of Apple Records, substituting “Apple Records” with “Humanities Building,” she balked. (Don’t mock the idea...too much. Hardcore research skills, which are taught in the writing classroom, go into good historical recreations. I think the fact that there is not enough insurance in the world to convince the Dean that it should ever be done killed the project.)

 

I’ve been teaching conspiracy theories for several years, and my final project usually has students create a new conspiracy theory that somehow draws on existing ones. By the time my students have finished the class, they have encountered a conspiracy theory, broken it down into its component parts, researched/fact-checked each element, analyzed the conspiracy, and written an argumentative paper about the rhetorical and narrative elements of the conspiracy theory that make it memorable and “culturally transmissible,” as it were. They then create their own conspiracy theory and write a paper illustrating how what they have learned in the class has influenced their own conspiracy theory.

 

And there it ends. We do not release our conspiracy theories onto the public because they are likely to be believed by someone. An important theme of the course is that conspiracy theories are not good things, that they are time sinks for people who would otherwise want to participate in American political life in a meaningful way, and that they perpetuate ignorance, misinformation, and hate (often targeting scapegoats). They are, to use Chip Berlet’s phrase, toxic to democracy.

Professor T. Mills Kelly at George Mason University, however, came to another conclusion when a history class he taught this semester culminated in students crafting two historical hoaxes and then propagating them on the Internet. The article about the hoax that has received the most attention is Yoni Appelbaum’s “How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit,” which appeared in The Atlantic this week. This is the second time that Kelly has taught the class. The first time, in 2008, his students fabricated the story of “the last American pirate,” the imaginary Edward Owens, and put it up on Wikipedia. This year, two hoaxes were released: one about a fictitious beer and one that centered around a redditor who thought that an ancestor might have been a serial killer. The first hoax didn’t really gain much traction, but the second one lit up the boards at reddit for just under half an hour before it was found out.

A course on historical hoaxes, or even just “hoaxes in history” sounds like a lot of fun, and I’d love to teach one some day. However, the subject matter, heck, the assigned reading, should raise a red flag to those considering releasing a hoax on the public. One of the books on the course list, Michael Farquhar’s A Treasury of Deception, for instance, opens with a discussion of Piltdown Man, a hoax that not only muddied human evolutionary history for 40 years but also still provides fodder for those who would discredit science. Hoaxes, it seems, when they become embedded in a culture, actually make history harder to do.

I looked at Kelly’s syllabus for the rationale behind the production of the hoaxes, and he provides two reasons:

“The first answer is that by learning about historical fakery, lying, and hoaxes, we all become much better consumers of historical information. In short, we are much less likely to be tricked by what we find in our own personal research about the past. That alone ought to be enough of a reason to teach this course.”
This is a good reason to teach about extraordinary claims in general, especially when the alternative is that students are going to encounter them out in the real world without the benefit of a teacher, but it does not follow that students will learn this lesson more thoroughly by perpetrating a hoax on the public. Kelly’s second reason I find far less compelling:
“I believe that the study of history ought to be fun and that too often historians (I include myself in this category) take an overly stuffy approach to the past. Maybe it’s our conditioning in graduate school, or maybe we’re afraid that if we get too playful with our field we won’t be taken seriously as scholars. Whatever the reason, I think history has just gotten a bit too boring for its own good. This course is my attempt to lighten up a little and see where it gets us.”
Kelly picked an awesome topic for getting students fired up about doing history, and that should be enough. Kenneth Feder’s fascinating Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology covers the cultural preconditions that set the stage for an archaeological hoax, and why hoaxes that now seem hopelessly implausible ever had credibility is a question that is entirely suited to a history class. At the same time, I sympathize with the notion that you have to have fun with your topic in class--I bank on my enthusiasm for whatever topic I am teaching to carry the course along. But neither “lightening up” history nor becoming savvy about the pitfalls that lead to accepting hoaxes necessitates imposing a falsehood on the public. Indeed, it seems to be a distraction from doing historical research, ostensibly the purpose of a history class.

Educators at the college level are usually called upon to do more than just teach or do research; we are also called on to serve as ambassadors for higher education, our university, and our disciplines both in public life and to our students. I would argue that fundamental to that public role is to not deliberately confuse people. I would take this tenet to be implied in the mission statement of George Mason, which enjoins instructors to “Provide innovative and interdisciplinary undergraduate, graduate, and professional courses of study that enable students to exercise analytical and imaginative thinking and make well-founded ethical decisions.” Kelly has certainly covered innovative, interdisciplinary, analytical, and imaginative aspects of a GMU course; I’m not sure the class satisfies the ethical component.

I think this is why so many academics and members of the public are kicking back so hard against the hoax class. Kelly anticipated this resistance in the syllabus:

In the interest of full disclosure, I have only taught this class once before and to my knowledge, no other history professor in the world is willing to teach something similar (or works in a department where they could get away with it). [...] The last time around, the final class project generated a great deal of discussion (much, but not all of it negative) in the academic blogosphere. As you’ll see when we discuss the previous iteration of this course, I’m not particularly sympathetic to those who took a dim view of what my students did.

I’m aware that I may appear to be flirting with the appeal to popularity, but I’m trying to respect the collective judgment of experts in a profession when I say that if “nobody else in the world is willing to teach in this way,” it should be taken a warning sign. A hoax may be worth trying, but one must wonder whether it is worth repeating, especially when more people are misinformed at the end of the semester than at the beginning.  

 

Bob Blaskiewicz is a Marion L. Brittain Postdoctoral Fellow at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, where he teaches writing and research courses that take extraordinary claims as their topic. He is co-editor of the site SkepticalHumanities.com.b>The JREF is proud to announce a new series on randi.org featuring

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
...
written by Willy K, May 30, 2012
Mr. Blaskiewicz , I have not taken any university level history courses, so please let me know right away if my question/comment is way off base.

It seems to me that history is just not about what has happened, but about who and why it was recorded. The most pertinent quote about the subject “History is written by the winners” is itself shrouded in mystery about who said it, when they said it and why they said it.

Are there any courses in the history curriculum that address the psychology of the recorders of history?

I consider that knowing the perceptions, prejudices, opinions, and the especially the egos of all those who were involved with the Piltdown Man hoax would be of much greater significance to historians than a simple timeline of who had the bones over the forty years of the deception.

As you said , this hoax still has negative effects on the way the non-scientific public views how scientific methodology works. Conversely, the hoax might be considered to have strengthened the discipline of true science!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by lytrigian, May 30, 2012
It's not hard to fool Wikipedia. An array of authentic-looking sources, readily concoctable if you have a semester's free time available, will do the trick. If you have the advantage of admin access to a history department's website, which will have all the appearance of a reliable source, then it's dead simple; even simpler if the regular cadre of editors for a subject don't happen to notice the new article. Nothing to see there, really.

While the object lesson in hoaxes is certainly valuable, I'm pretty sure it's not this valuable. Kelly has educated his students at the expense of misinforming the public, and misinforming the public directly contradicts his mandate as a history professor, I would think. If a single naive person out there still believes in Edward Owens, then he has indeed done something frankly unethical.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by eamarti3, May 31, 2012
I learned a lot from James Randi's Encyclopedia and have used the book a lot over the years in physics class. We are required by the state standards to teach them things like this: "Identify and critique arguments about personal or societal issues based on scientific evidence." and "Develop an understanding of a scientific concept by accessing information from multiple sources. Evaluate the scientific accuracy and significance of the information." I also teach them the "Baloney Detection Kit" which I think is very valuable outside of school. I do think that learning about pseudoscience can enhance their understanding of real science, and get them interested, too.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by rjblaskiewicz, June 01, 2012
Sorry for the delay in replying. Was on vacation. It was wonderful, thanks for asking. smilies/smiley.gif

"Are there any courses in the history curriculum that address the psychology of the recorders of history?"

Any would be at the upper level, I imagine, either for majors or graduate students. More typically, when you are looking at the history of historiography, you will either look at particular authors or at the culture-at-large at the time a history was written, which may shed light on why historical interpretations were initially accepted. But be careful about presuming to go inside anyone's head, especially someone who is long dead. Motives are often unknown even to people at the time they are acting on them. I am often a stranger to myself, for instance. smilies/smiley.gif You need a special type of evidence to determine "what someone was thinking," and we rarely have direct evidence of that.

I should mention that I think that Dr. Kelly's infraction is, in the grand sweep of things, pretty minor.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Willy K, June 01, 2012
Thanks Bob, "historiography" is a term that I was unfamiliar with, it lead to a few hours reading and following related links on the web!

I was thinking of the word "psychohistory." Little did I know that it wasn't simply an invention of Hari Seldon. Two smiley faces to all those who know the reference. smilies/smiley.gif smilies/smiley.gif

I think it would be interesting to compare the acceptance of the Piltdown hoax by the anthropologists not involved in the hoax with the publishers of The Lancet who took twelve years to retract the hoax perpetrated by Andrew Wakefield. Could it be some of the same reluctance to condemn a fellow scientist?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Bob B., June 03, 2012
I would say that Wakefield committed fraud....You know, a good hoax, a productive one, will have some sort of lesson attached to it. Not the case with Wakefield. Pildown...it's harder to say. It was fraud too...Hm. Yeah, I need to think about that one. I'm seeing all of them as falling within "categories of misinformation," but exactly which type each is I'm not sure., and I think that you could debate those classifications. But again, hoaxes and misinformation are GREAT topics for classes and fun to research.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy