Paranormal Tribune

Abstract

In my college course in introductory biology, include a few lectures on the structure of the atom as a basis for understanding the chemistry of living things. To convey how incredibly small these particles are, point out that Danish physicist Niels Bohr described the modern atomic model in 1913, but that we couldn't actually see an atom until the 1980s when IBM researchers photographed atoms using a Scanning Tunneling Microscope. Soon after--as a sort of encore--this instrument was used to manipulate 35 atoms of the gas xenon--and later, the very heavy metal thorium--into a pattern, a corporate logo to be exact. And which logo would that be? Why, IBM, of course. When tell my students about this, many--but not all--of them are duly wowed. But once, a student spoke up and decreed that atoms didn't exist. His reasoning: If they were so elusive and virtually invisible, how could they constitute substances as dense as metals? Furthermore, he asked how such exceedingly small things--mere will o' the quantum wisps--could be shuffled around, even by IBM. Let me begin by reaffirming, in writing, my belief that skepticism is necessary in any discipline, but especially in science, where experimental findings must rest on a veritable Masada of data in order to be taken seriously by the scientific community. scientist worth his or her salt has a duty to listen to new information with an attentive but always critical ear. For every nod of the head as one considers new data, there should be four or five impatient taps of the pencil on the desktop (I think this is the correct ratio). The result is a set of results that emerges from the crucible of cross-examination, ready for general dissemination. Like most teachers know, encourage critical thinking in my classes. Dissect the knowledge, don't worship it, tell my students. Challenge me. Ask questions. Hold me to account for what teach. (Neils Bohr used to tell his students, Every sentence that utter should be regarded by you not as an assertion but as a question.) This is, more or less, what my student, that atom-doubter, did, and though it would have been nice if he hadn't ruled out the existence of atoms with such finality, how could object to his putting my intellectual feet to the fire and compelling me to explain the concept further, to the point where understanding was a real possibility? However, was troubled by his tendency--shared by other of my students over the years--to reject scientific information out of hand. Atoms, genetics, plate tectonics, evolution (especially evolution!)--all have fallen victim to their terrible swift sword not of doubt, but of outright disbelief. They are not usually hostile to the information; they simply convey the impression that must be, somehow, mistaken. This can live with. What bamboozles me is that students who sniff at DNA's role in determining our physical and, to an extent, behavioral characteristics frequently embrace paranormal and even atrocious Enquirer-caliber claims whole hog. Secret human/animal hybrid experiments, crop circles, Martian civilizations, invisible atmospheric jellyfish creatures, and jackalopes make their way down my students' mental gullets without a hitch. If they're willing to accept such unsubstantiated things at face value, why can't they be receptive to knowledge acquired via the scientific method? How can a student doubt that the continents are adrift, yet seize the idea of alien abductions with such dire passion? This very thought was brought home to me years ago when was walking the minefield of evolution in my general biology course. As described the evolution of the modern horse from small, puppy dog-size ancestors, a student named Brian expressed his skepticism, using the words You've got to be kidding for emphasis. When asked if anyone could describe the evolution of another species, Brian volunteered that, I once saw a three-legged woman in a porno magazine. …