This episode illustrates how problematic it is to discuss the authenticity and falseness of any religion when taking into account the credibility of the doctrine. The message that episode ends with is similar to that of William Iron's (2001) argument that the authentic religion is hard to fake, but people choose to believe because it is the sign of commitment that leads to a bigger chance of survival and well-being. Thus, way religion can not qualify for authenticity only the individual commitment does.

The most interesting and useful feature of the website is a column called 'How to Identify a Fake' that provides a reader with a list of tools and methods that help to identify fake videos and photos online.

Stopfake.org  relates to the course topic 'fake documents' in two ways. First, the circulation of 'fake news' (about Ukraine in this case)  generates similar effects as those described by Bubandt  (2009) in his paper about the power of fake documents (fake leaked letters). According to Bubandt, fake documents (news) have potential to bring a sense of belonging to a nation, they induce imagination and allow one to see and understand the enemies point of view. To put it simply,  it allows to reproduce and legitimate power by exposing potential threat. Second, most 'fake news' busted by the website community are from the Russian media. Reeves (2013) described a system of documentary uncertainty and suspicion prevalent in Russia. I believe phenomenon described by Reeves could be extended further from any legal documents to all publicly displayed information in urban Russia. Stopfake.org then provides some examples of 'unclean fakes' that are easy to bust and equips the public with tools it needs. 

The talk is a part of a wider debate about the relationship between science and ideology (Gieryn 1983). 

The endless conflict between religion and science reached the crescendo with the debate over evolutionism/creationism.  According to Turner (1974) this is a professional conflict over authority and prestige.  

 According to Tyndall (Tyndall in Gieryn 1983: 784-785), a Victorian 'statesman for science'  there are few distinguishable features between sciences and religion: first, science is empirical whereas religion is metaphysical, so religion can not be verified; second, science is skeptical because it respects no authority other than the facts of nature whereas religion is dogmatic,(science is more successful because of its willingness to abandon all preconceived notions, if they be found to contradict the truth) ; thirdly, science is supposed to be objective, free from emotions, private interests, bias and prejudice whereas religion is subjective.

 I found the film interesting because it illustrates the opposite to what Tyndall argued. It shows that science is, in fact, a belief system and that scientists are biased. It points out that the spiritual phenomenon can be observed it's just that scientific methods fail to verify and explain it. It also shows how dogmatic and arrogant science is, the main character is not willing to change his understanding.

The interesting part of the hoax is that the coffeehouse is legally registered as a piece of parody art, so it is allowed to do both, make fun of 'Starbucks' and use its trademark for business purpose. 

In media 'Dumb Starbucks' was described as a hoax, however, it is a great example of how problematic it is to define something as a hoax (a problem discussed by Fleming and O Carroll 2010). In the first place, the intention of the author was not revealed, so it is hard to say whether it should be defined as a performative hoax or an actual business strategy. 

This example shows how problematic plagiarism of ideas (Resnik 2012) and copyright is. The Definition of a copyright assumes that there is only one originator of literary, artistic or music material, whereas these people came up with (or at least there a probability) with similar ideas, materials on their own independently. Here, the question could be asked to what extent an artistic piece has to be similar/different that it would be credited to an earlier originator?

  Alex Boese (2002) defines a hoax in a very broad sense - he refers to a hoax as a sensational and purposeful act of deception that attracts the attention of the public. He distinguishes hoaxes from other small everyday acts of deception in its purpose to attract the public attention. According to Boes,e there are four features that make a hoax successful: first, a hoax has to fall within the limits of what we think might be true; second, a successful hoax has to be startling or sensational, it has to demonstrate creativity; third, many successful hoaxes will take advantage of our tendency to believe whatever reinforces our preexisting notions of what should be true, or what we want to be true.