0
I'll give you two and the theory I believe.
1. A common theory is Ergot poisoning. Ergot is a fungus that grows on wheat and rye that causes hallucinations much like those of LSD. It also causes pain from resricted circulation of blood. Pain was the main symptom of the afflicted victims. The hallucinations could account for the spectors of witches they saw. It also came at the right time. Wheat and rye are consumed over the winter when there is nothing else to eat. The afflictions began in mid to late winter.
2. There's also the guilt theory. Girls in Salem went to the reverands to pass the time hearing stories and learning white magic from the slave Tituba. Of course, that was illegal and frowned upon in Puritan socitey. Racked with guilt, the girls lied to cover up what they had done. Eventually the power and attention went to their heads. That explains why they started out blaming people who were on the very fringes of society, like Tituba and Sarah Goode, and the went on to accuse more powerful people, like the reverand Burroughs. They also would have named personal enemies. For example, Rebbecca Nurse had argued with the Putnams over land. It also explains why people who spoke out against the trials were always named. If people started to listen to them and their reasoning, the girls might be found out.
After five years of reading and thinking about the Trials, I personally agree with Laurie Carlson's theory about encephalitis. Encephalitis is a disease that affects the brain and nervous system that can cause visions and muscle spasms. That explains the fits and visions. Encephalitis also can pinch nerves, which can account for the feeling of being pinched. Salem Village is near a swamp, where mosquitoes, the main carriers of encephalitis in New England, breed. It also explains why not everyone was afflicted. It affects children more easily and not everyone affected has symptoms. The theory also gives a reason for why only Ann Putnam apologized. She was one who faked it. Everything fits. However, I do not believe that everyone had Encephalitis because it seems impossible that when in court, the girls could see the very persons on trial in their visions. Its too convient, or inconvient if you're the defendant. So, some had aggravated symptoms while others just pretended for personal gain.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the job of the courts of appeals?
The job of the court of appeals is to examine and render judgements on whether a trial challenge is constitutional, valid and necessary. The court will repeal decisions or grant new trials based upon the legal argument presented to them.
Is schengen visa valid for Poland?
Yes, Poland is part of the Schengen Area and Schengen visas are valid.
Who was elected on the sound money platform?
William McKinley ran on a 'gold standard' platform, which may be what you're looking for. William Jennings Bryan ran against him, favoring a 'bi-metallic' standard--both silver and gold. His 'Cross Of Gold' speech is a classic of saying a bunch of words without giving a single valid argument for what the speech advocates. TexasCharley
Are Zionists devil worshipers?
Answer 1The question is absurd on its face. After running through roughly fifteen ways to answer it, I decided that the best answer is: No, and if I were you, I'd be careful around whoever put that idea into your head.Answer 2This is the type of argument against Israel and its validity that reeks of desperation. The person who made the argument realized that Israel is valid on international legal grounds, historical grounds, political grounds, economic grounds, and so on, but really wishes that it did not exist. Therefore, in order to make Israel impossible to defend, he tars Zionism (which is a form of patriotism towards a Jewish State) with devil worship (which almost everybody seems to agree is wrong), even though the two principles are not at all related.Additionally, the term Zionist is often incorrectly used to describe a conspiratorial cabal bent on world domination. Not only does this cabal not exist, but this is something that reeks of Anti-Semitism and merely replaces the word "Jew" with the word "Zionist" to seem less offensive.
Is your UK visa valid for Northern Ireland also?
Northern Ireland is part of the UK so your UK visa is valid.
Can a valid argument be weak?
Ques: Can a valid argument be weak? Ans: If the valid argument has logic to it, it cannot be weak, it is strong!
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
Are Valid arguments strong or weak?
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
When you are building an argument for an issue that is significant to you do you think it is more important to be valid or sound?
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
Hypothesis only becomes a valid argument conclusion after it has been?
A hypothesis only becomes a valid argument after it has been proved. It is only a valid argument if there is proof (i.e. from an experiment).
A valid argument can have a false conclusion True or False?
True. - Valid arguments are deductive. - Arguments are valid if the premises lead to the conclusion without committing a fallacy. - If an argument is valid, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. - This means that a valid argument with a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. This is called a valid, unsound argument. - A valid, sound argument would be when, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true and the premises are true.
What is the difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy?
A valid deductive argument will have a valid premise and conclusion and a fallacy may be true, it all matters on how you came to the conclusion.
What is the difference between a valid or invalid argument?
An invalid argument is when the facts you are using are invalid or your forms of defense are wrong or incorrect, a valid argument is the opposite of an invalid argument. "There is a windmill in my beard. your argument is invalid." (This is a good example of a bad contradiction)
What is the difference between valid and sound in a argument?
Valid means that the argument leads to a true conclusion, given that its premises are true, but if an argument is valid that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, as its premises may be wrong. A sound argument, on the other hand, in addition to being valid all of its premises are true and hence its conclusion is also true.
What is the difference between a valid fact and a valid argument?
Facts cannot be valid. They can only be true or false. Arguments, on the other hand, can be valid. A valid argument in one which must have a true conclusion provided that the premises are true (no guarantee of that though).
What is a fallacious argument?
An argument that sometimes fools human reasoning, but is not logically valid.
Is it true that valid arguments are said to be strong or weak?
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
