Giant Octopus: On Rocky Shores

Contents (of this page)

1. Instructional Objectives
2. Instructional Activities
3. Instructors Notes on Classroom Exercises
• Individually
• Small group discussion
• Class discussion
• Assignments
4. Suggestions for Additional Work
5. Standards

Handouts

1. Individual - Handout 1
2. Small group discussion - Handout 2
3. Questions to follow the assigned reading - Handout 3

Instructional Objectives:

1. Students write down their existing concept of science and scientific methods, and discuss these in small groups.
2. In small-group and class discussion, students identify ways of observing, thinking, and testing ideas that are scientific.
3. After reading "The Kraken", students apply ideas identified in the discussions to decide what is scientifically known about giant squids, and what is myth or speculation.

Material for advanced work:

4. Read Sagan's chapter "The fine art of baloney detection" and have students evaluate an example using these tools.
5. Read, evaluate and discuss Wiens' article about the Exxon Valdez oil spill and a series of letters-to-the-editor debating whether Wiens is presenting good science.

Ellis, Richard. 1994. Monsters of the Sea. Alfred A. Knopf, N.Y. The Kraken pp 113-164.

Instructional activities:

Have students individually provide short answers for the questions in Handout 1. Then, in small groups, have students consider and discuss their answers from Handout 1 and discuss the questions in Handout 2. The class as a whole should discuss the considerations of each group (Handout 3). (In small classes, the small-group discussion and class discussion could be combined.) For advanced lessons, see "Suggestions for Additional Work."

INSTRUCTORS NOTES ON CLASSROOM EXERCISES

Give students a few minutes to answer these questions (Handout 1) individually. You might consider introducing the lesson with a brief explanation of why you think it is important.

Small group discussion

In small groups, have students work on the topics presented in Handout 2. If time permits, let these discussions continue until students finish, rather than providing a pre-set time limit.

Class discussion

In the class discussion, consider the following statements about science and scientists:

1. (Faith) Scientists believe that things and events are understandable through careful study.
2. (Argument) Scientists follow rules of argument to advance their ideas.
3. (Theory) A scientific theory is a single framework of ideas that logically relates many observations.
4. (Imagination) A good imagination is necessary for a scientist to think of ways to test a theory with observations or experiments.
5. (Evidence) Science has rules for evaluating evidence.
6. (Logic) Science uses logic as a way to think critically about the relationship between evidence and explanation.
7. (Validation) Scientific theories are continuously tested with new evidence.

8. (Explanation) Science requires that explanations be supported by evidence.

9. (Observation) Science requires that evidence be observable.

10. (Experiment) A scientific experiment is a formal procedure to explore an idea.

Assignment

Now have students read "The Kraken". Model answers to the questions (Handout 3) are provided below.

1. In the excerpt from Twenty-thousand Leagues Under the Sea (p 118) what does Ned Lance ask Conseil? Why does Lance ask this question?

Lance asks if Conseil has "seen, with his own eyes" a large boat dragged down by a squid. Lance finds the story hard to believe and is trying to evaluate the evidence. Whether the account he is hearing is first or second-hand is one criteria for evaluation, as stories often become distorted as they pass from one person to the next.

2. Which account is more scientific: that of the naturalist Pierre Denys de Montfort (p 118 to 121) or that of Reverend Moses Harvey (p 130 to 131). Why?

The account by Reverend Harvey of receiving a piece of giant squid tentacle from a fisherman was from a first-hand witness and was accompanied by physical evidence. There were also other witnesses. Harvey was able to have the physical evidence examined by an expert, Addison Emery Verril, who concurred that it was real. In contrast, in relating de Montfort's account of a sailing ship saved by St. Thomas from the arms of a monster no first-hand witnesses were named and no physical evidence was mentioned. Furthermore, de Montfort's later account of a giant cuttlefish that sank a fleet of ten ships lacked a survivor to witness it; and de Montfort himself admitted he was making up the tale (p 121). For these reasons (first-hand observation, verification by other observers, physical evidence), Harvey's account is more scientific than de Montfort's.

3. Why do scientists disagree about whether Architeuthis are slow, passive predators or fast, powerful and deadly (p 147-148)? How could this disagreement be solved?

The reason for the disagreement is that there is little direct evidence. Since the giant squid has never been seen in its normal environment, nor healthy, nor feeding, there are no observations that directly address the question. Arguing from morphology, some scientists have concluded the giant squid is a slow, sluggish scavenger, emphasizing proportionally thin musculature, normal rather than giant nerve fibers, and weak mantle-locking cartilages (the cartilage that holds the mantle shut while the water in the body cavity is forcibly expelled out the funnel). Other scientists have concluded that Architeuthis is agile and strong enough to capture fast-moving prey and escape sperm whales. These observers placed emphasis on the prominent and hooked suckers, the very powerful buccal muscles (buccal refers to mouth) and beak, and the idea that weak mantle-locking cartilages may restrict flexibility rather than limit speed. More observations would help resolve the disagreement: finding a squid with food in its stomach or filming one swimming and feeding underwater.

Suggestions for Additional Work:

Standards: