By the way, I confess I owe the topic of cryptozoology my thanks for a life long habit of reading. As a kid, I enjoyed picture books and can still vividly recall one particular book, a Frank Buck “bring’em back alive” illustrated book, that had gorgeous paintings of exotic animals and birds. But I never read the books; I just looked at the pictures. (I did, however, always read the first and last pages of my dad’s Ian Flemings).

Then, one day, I found Frank Edwards’ STRANGER THAN SCIENCE and my life changed. I READ the book, over and over. It was a collection of Edwards’ columns, dealing with everything from the Loch Ness Monster to people who disappeared in plain sight. WOW! (Later I would realize that much of Edwards’ stuff consisted of “twice told tales” and what we would now call “urban legends”.) I went to the library to find other similar books, and would read and read and read. I especially enjoyed Ivan Sanderson and his ABOMINABLE SNOWMEN: LEGEND COME TO LIFE was the first hardcover book I ever bought.

And I have been reading ever since. Science, philosophy, history, non-fiction and so on. (Even the works of skeptics. It’s not painful folks. Try it.)

So, yes. I owe cryptozoology a debt. And I see how it could be used beneficently as a tool in the classroom today.

I must have also been wrong about the purpose of the class, apparently it is not “critical thinking,” as stated in the original post, but simply “writing.” That’s a different story then; if the purpose is just a writing exercise, that’s one thing. If the purpose is critical thinking, that’s quite another.

What I did find was all points of view were well represented and encouraged.

There were debunkers in the class, and the instructors (in person) elaborated on the “other articles” that they emailed me about, which are being used to support the “P-G film is a hoax” POV.

It’s a class on writing, for Freshman, not on zoology or anthropology. The contrast is there, folks.

A leetle bit.

I think it could have been a little plainer that the Nationa…sorry, the Skeptical Enquirer was involved, because even a skeptic (let’s not give that word a bad name, now) like me missed that on the first couple reads. “Other articles” soft-pedals it a bit too much, methinks. Say what they are. Without, of course, labeling them negatively. Equal time in debates, right, Hillary? Obama? Hey, play nice…!

Or at least check your Armageddon references and see whether we’re at End of Days.

I AGREE WITH BEN RADFORD ON SOMETHING!

Personally, most sasquatch books don’t interest me; they take too much of a monster/paranormal/Weird Occurrences slant, rather than just examining the evidence for what may be an unlisted primate. (I’d prefer to just read sighting reports. That’s the evidence, right there.) There are a number of exceptions, however, of which Loren’s and Jeff’s are two.

But I was sort of expecting more contrast here. Don’t know a thing about Redfern’s book. But you do need the debunker side of the question as well as the proponent side.

Besides the fact that skepticism is certainly in evidence in my book and Jeff’s on many points along the Bigfoot research path, including some very different points of view we have about the Wallace evidence, Ben completely ignores that the other side was mentioned by the instructor.

As the course’s instructor mentioned, the students are required to read “other articles to construct arguments as to whether the film could have been hoaxed or if a hoax seems unlikely.”

LOL. Those “other articles,” actually, are ones from The Skeptical Inquirer, of which Ben Radford happens to be the managing editor.

“…students will become involved in critical thinking. The students are required to read two books that present different view points on an issue. For their classes they are using my book Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America, Jeff Meldrum’s Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science and Nick Redfern’s Three Men Seeking Monsters.”

Let’s see: students are learning critical thinking by reading three different points of view on a topic. I’m sure that Coleman, Redfern, and Meldrum differ on some details, but all three are very much in the “pro-Bigfoot” camp. This is what passes for diversity of points of view?

If students are being asked to think critically and examine different points of view, it seems very odd that not a single skeptical article or book is among them.

I do think it would be better in a logic 101 class, but it doesn’t really matter, as long as the kids are exposed to it and required to think about it.

i wouldn’t have had to hide all the cool crypto books i was reading inside the oversized textbooks featuring “the classics.”

don’t get me wrong. i’m glad i read shakespeare and chaucer, too, but… did they ever hold a candle to the latest, greatest bigfoot tomes?

nawwww….