...while grading a paper from a student. First of all, he referred to "astronomy" as "astrology". Secondly, his summary of a newspaper article derided the idea of being able to infer a previous collision between Kuiper Belt objects as being "too great for a reasonable person to believe" and that humans in the current era couldn't possibly have the ability to make such a statement. In fact, he extols his own skepticism and that he doesn't believe everything he reads. It distresses me, because putting this opinion together with his body language in lecture, I think he's been approaching the whole course this way. Don't get me wrong: I encourage my students to call me out when they think the ideas are too wacky to be possible. It's especially crucial in astronomy. I'm always careful to point out where the error bars are large or what assumptions underlie an idea. The goal of this course is to get enough of a fundamental basis so that you can be a "reasonable" person. To read this with only one month left in the course leaves me feeling a little pointless. Sigh.