Jeb Card, Miami University

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

“Investigating the Paranormal”

What prompted the idea for the course?

My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

What does the course explore?

The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

Advertisement

In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

Why is this course relevant now?

Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

Advertisement

The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

What will the course prepare students to do?

This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Najmedin Meshkati, University of Southern California

The Los Angeles fires are a national disaster of epic proportions. City officials, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and President-elect Donald Trump have traded accusations about what caused this crisis. But as an engineering professor who lives in Los Angeles and has studied extreme events and natural and human-caused disasters for over 40 years, I believe an event with so many lives lost and damages estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars demands a more substantive response.

Many problems have been cited as alleged root causes of this massive wildfire outbreak. They include mismanaged water resources, misallocation of firefighting resources, fire department funding cuts, poor risk management, reignition of past fires, and climate-driven dry conditions. Rumors and conspiracy theories have also abounded. https://www.youtube.com/embed/E2_KvbLgHlY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Damage from the Los Angeles wildfires, estimates at $135 billion or more as of mid-January, could affect homeowners insurance rates across the U.S.

I have served as a member or adviser to national- and state-level investigations of events including gas leaks, oil spills, nuclear reactor accidents, refinery explosions and, most recently, aviation mishaps.

In my view, the Los Angeles fires call for a similar investigation that is technically sound, multidisciplinary, unbiased, apolitical and independent. U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff of California has called for convening such a review.

To quote a saying often attributed to Albert Einstein: “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

Natural events + human responses

Natural disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis often serve as triggers. Devastating on their own, these events can have far more catastrophic aftermaths that are shaped by human choices. Nature delivers the initial blow, but a complex interplay of human, organizational and technological factors can either mitigate or worsen the consequences.

I believe human operators and first responders constitute society’s first and the very last layer of defense against death and destruction in the crucial moments following natural disasters and technological systems failures – serving as our immediate shield, intermediate mitigator and ultimate savior.

Advertisement

I saw this when I served on a National Academy of Sciences committee that studied the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The explosions and radioactive releases at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, but a Japanese high-level review concluded that this event was a “manmade disaster” – one born of human and organizational failure at the utility and governmental levels.

The fate of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station, just 39 miles from Fukushima, was also notable. Although Onagawa was closer to the earthquake’s epicenter and faced an even more powerful tsunami, the reactors there – which were identical in type and age to Fukushima’s and subject to the same regulations – emerged almost unscathed. This stark difference demolished any argument that Fukushima’s failure was inevitable, an act of God or purely nature’s fault.

High-level commissions have reviewed similar disasters in the United States. For example:

– The President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 produced the landmark Kemeny Report, which concluded that the accident was primarily caused by human factors, including inadequate operator training and confusing procedures, rather than equipment failures alone. The report strongly criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the nuclear power industry, and recommended a complete restructuring of the agency. It also called for better safety measures, operator training and emergency preparedness in the nuclear industry.

– Independent commissions investigated the explosions of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 and the Columbia space shuttle in 2003. They identified similar systemic issues behind these incidents, even though they occurred 17 years apart, and provided overlapping recommendations to improve NASA’s safety culture and decision-making processes.

– Two national reviews – one by a blue-ribbon commission and the other by the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council – investigated the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. This disaster killed 11 workers, seriously injured 16 others and released an estimated 134 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Both reports concluded that BP’s poor safety culture and practices, along with technical failures, lax regulation and inadequate inspections, had contributed to the well blowout. Both commissions made recommendations for improving the safety of offshore drilling. https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9aSUQmwUgA?wmode=transparent&start=0 President Barack Obama announces the formation of an expert commission to analyze causes and lessons from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, May 21, 2011.

Analyzing the Los Angeles fires

Based on my research and experience, I believe only a high-level independent investigative commission can fully unravel this disaster’s interconnected causes. Government agencies, regulatory bodies and legislative committees inevitably fall short in such investigations. They are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and bureaucratic interests. Their efforts remain too narrow and inward-focused. And, crucially, they lack true independence.

Advertisement

Gov. Newsom has directed the Los Angeles water and public works departments to review why hydrants ran dry, which hampered firefighting efforts. But this inquiry focuses narrowly on water supply issues in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood. It does not address other blazes like the Eaton fire near Pasadena, which has caused even more damage.

The most straightforward way to set up a high-level review of the Los Angeles wildfires would be for the Trump administration and Congress to direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Research Council to establish an independent commission. The National Academies are private, nonprofit organizations created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to provide the nation with independent, objective advice on complex problems. The National Research Council is the National Academies’ operating arm.

Typically, such studies are led by a prominent person of national distinction or a renowned scholar, and are carried out by a panel of national experts from academia, business, the public sector and nongovernmental organizations.

The National Academies have a reputation for producing independent, rigorous and nonpartisan studies. They screen members thoroughly for technical expertise and conflicts of interest. All of their studies go through formal peer review, which helps ensure that they are scientifically accurate and credible.

When the federal government requests a study from the academies, Congress provides funding through a relevant federal agency. For the Los Angeles fires, the federal sponsor might be the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Could a study proposed and sponsored by Congress and the Trump administration be balanced and nonpartisan? In my view, if the National Academies produced it, the answer is yes. The academies have a strong track record of reviewing complex issues, including disaster planning, response and recovery, risk assessment and wildfires. And their recommendations have improved public policy. https://www.youtube.com/embed/raMmRKGkGD4?wmode=transparent&start=0 In a televised 1986 hearing, physicist Richard Feynman, a member of a presidential commission that investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, demonstrates the commission’s finding that critical seals on the shuttle became brittle at low temperatures. The report showed that NASA and its key contractor knew this flaw existed and could cause a catastrophic failure, but still approved the launch. The explosion killed all seven crew members.

Lessons for future disasters

I see the Los Angeles fires as a stark warning to communities nationwide. There is a widening gap between intensifying climate-induced extreme events that are becoming Earth’s new normal, and municipal planning, preparedness and response capabilities.

Advertisement

Meeting these unprecedented challenges requires a paradigm shift in public policy. To protect public safety, officials and planners will have to proactively confront scenarios that may recently have seemed unthinkable.

For example, while Southern Californians are accustomed to wildfires, Los Angeles County agencies were unprepared to fight several major fires simultaneously. Flooding in North Carolina from Hurricane Helene in September 2024 is another example. Rainfall totals across the southern Appalachians reached levels that would only be expected once in 1,000 years based on past records.

To be prepared for such events, government agencies at all levels will need to reimagine their approaches to hazard assessment, risk management and emergency response. I believe a balanced and thorough investigation of the Los Angeles fires could help communities across the U.S. reframe their thinking about planning for emergencies.

Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Victor Menaldo, University of Washington

As Donald Trump’s second inauguration fast approaches, concerns he threatens American democracy are rising yet again. Some warnings have cited Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric, willingness to undermine or malign institutions meant to constrain any president, and a combative style that strives to stretch executive power as far as possible.

Authoritarianism erodes property rights and the rule of law, so financial markets typically respond with alarm to political unrest. If major investors and corporations really believed the United States was on the brink of dictatorship, there would be large-scale capital flight, equity sell-offs, spikes in U.S. credit default swaps or rising bond yields unexplained by typical macroeconomic factors such as inflation forecasts.

Instead, there have been no systematic signs of such market reactions, nor an investor exodus from American markets. Quite the contrary.

This absence of alarm is not conclusive proof that democracy is safe forever, nor that Trump cannot damage American democracy at all. But it does suggest that credible institutions and investors who literally bet on political outcomes for a living do not view an American autocracy as imminent or even likely.

This is probably because the mechanics of upending American democracy would entail surmounting a thick tangle of constitutional, bureaucratic, legal and political obstacles. As a political economist who has written widely about the constitutional foundations of modern democracies, I submit it’s far more complicated than one man issuing brash executive orders.

Presidents have long seized more power

Throughout American history, presidents have achieved far greater expansions of executive power than Trump did in his first term.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, allowing detention without trial. He bypassed Congress through sweeping executive actions, most notably the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared freedom for enslaved people in Confederate states.

Woodrow Wilson created administrative agencies and imposed draconian censorship during World War I via the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.

Advertisement

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing plan failed to pass, but it still cowed the Supreme Court into deference. His New Deal bureaucracy centralized vast powers in the executive branch.

Lyndon B. Johnson obtained the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, transferring major war-making powers from Congress to the presidency. Richard Nixon invoked executive privilege and ordered secret bombings in Cambodia, steps that largely bypassed congressional oversight.

George W. Bush expanded executive prerogatives after 9/11 with warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention. Barack Obama faced criticism for the dubious legal rationale behind drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens deemed enemy combatants abroad.

These historical examples should not be conflated with an actual ability to impose one-man rule, though. The United States, whatever its imperfections, has a deeply layered system of checks and balances that has repeatedly stymied presidents of both parties when they tried to govern by decree.

Trump’s openly combative style was in many ways less adept at entrenching presidential power than many of his predecessors. During his first term, he broadcast his intentions so transparently that it galvanized numerous institutional forces – judges, bureaucrats, state officials, inspectors general – to resist his attempts. While Trump’s rhetoric was more incendiary, other presidents achieved deeper expansions of the executive branch more discreetly.

Trump’s Jan. 6 plan was never realistic

Trump’s failure to impose his will became particularly evident on Jan. 6, 2021, when claims that an “auto-coup” was afoot never translated into the real-world mechanics that would have kept him in office beyond the end of his term.

Even before the Electoral Count Reform Act made the process clearer in 2022, scholars agreed that under the 12th Amendment the vice president’s role in certifying the election is purely ministerial, giving him no constitutional basis to replace or discard certified electoral votes. Similarly, state laws mandate that certification is a mandatory, ministerial duty, preventing officials from arbitrarily refusing to certify election results.

Had Pence refused to certify the Electoral College vote count, it is more likely than not that courts would have swiftly ordered Congress to proceed. Moreover, the 20th Amendment fixed noon on Jan. 20 as the end of the outgoing president’s term, making it impossible for Trump to remain in power just by creating delay or confusion.

Advertisement

The idea that Pence’s refusal to certify could erase state-certified votes, or coerce Congress into accepting alternate slates, had no firm grounding in law or precedent. After Jan. 20, the outgoing president would simply cease to hold office. Thus, the chain of events needed for an auto-coup to occur in 2021 would have fallen apart under the weight of well-established procedures.

A massive bureaucracy

Potential avenues of power consolidation during Trump’s impending second term are equally narrow. The federal bureaucracy makes it exceedingly difficult for a president to rule by fiat.

The Department of Justice alone comprises roughly 115,000 employees, including over 10,000 attorneys and 13,000 FBI agents, most of them career civil servants protected by the Civil Service Reform Act and whistleblower laws. They have their own professional standards and can challenge or reveal political interference. If an administration tries to remove them en masse, it runs into protracted appeals processes, legal constraints, the need to conduct a bevy of lengthy background checks and a crippling loss of institutional knowledge.

Past episodes, including the George W. Bush administration’s politically motivated dismissals of U.S. attorneys in 2006 and 2007, illustrate that congressional oversight and internal department practices can still produce major pushback, resignations and scandals that thwart political interference with the Justice Department.

Independent regulatory agencies also resist being dominated by the president. Many are designed so that no more than three out of five commissioners can belong to the same political party, ensuring some measure of bipartisan representation. Minority commissioners can deploy a host of procedural tools – delaying votes, demanding comprehensive studies, calling for hearings – that slow down or block controversial proposals. This makes it harder for a single leader to unilaterally impose policy. Those minority commissioners can also alert the media and Congress to questionable moves, inviting investigations or public scrutiny.

In addition, a 2024 Supreme Court ruling shifted the power to interpret federal laws, as passed by Congress, away from executive branch government agencies. Now, federal judges play a more active role in determining what Congress’ words mean. This requires agencies to operate within narrower bounds and to produce stronger evidence to justify their decisions. In practical terms, an administration now has less leeway to stretch statutes for partisan or authoritarian ends without encountering judicial pushback.

Layers of defenses

American democracy has vulnerabilities, and other democracies have collapsed under powerful executives before. But in my view, it’s not reasonable to draw definitive lessons from a tiny number of extreme outliers, such as Hitler in 1933 or the handful of elected leaders who staged more recent auto-coups in fragile or developing democracies such as Argentina, Peru, Turkey and even Hungary.

The United States stands out for having a complex federal system, entrenched legal practices and multiple layers of institutional friction. Those protections have historically proven adept at limiting presidential overreach – whether subtle or bombastic.

Advertisement

In addition, state-level politicians, including attorneys general and governors, have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to challenge federal overreach through litigation and noncooperation.

The military’s professional culture of civilian control and constitutional fidelity, consistently upheld by the courts, provides another safeguard. For instance, in 1952 the Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer reversed President Harry Truman’s order that the military seize privately owned steel mills to ensure supply during the Korean War.

All those institutional checks are further buttressed by a robust civil society that can mobilize legal challenges, advocacy campaigns and grassroots resistance. Corporations can wield economic influence through public statements, campaign funding decisions and policy stances – as many did in the aftermath of Jan. 6.

Taken together, these overlapping layers of resistance make the path to autocracy far more challenging than many casual observers might assume. These protections also may explain why most Americans are resigned to Trump’s second term: Many may have come to realize that the nation’s democratic experiment is not at stake – and probably never was.

Victor Menaldo, Professor of Political Science, Co-founder of the Political Economy Forum, University of Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement