Arguments in Philosophy class

[bladefd]

Based on your experiences as a student, do you think it is appropriate to get into a long philosophical debate with a professor on a course site? (This is for philosophical differences between the methods of science vs religion - I'm defending the scientific method)?

It is absolutely a respectful argument both ways, but I don't want to come across as being somebody that thinks I know it all. I don't know it all, and I'm just an undergrad student. The professor has a PhD in western philosophy. He is a very down-to-Earth type of person that is very good at what he does.

What sort of arguments have you had with your professors over the years that you would want to share?

[IamRAMBO24]

If your professor is a true philosopher, he would easily destroy you. Philosophers created science and they have also destroyed it as well as an ideology. Science is nothing more than a neat tool to use, but it fails as an ideology.

[IamRAMBO24]

What would your premise be?

[Budadiiii]

Get specific, what are you arguing about and tell us your stance. We need to know if you're stupid before we give you any advice.

[mr.big35]

inb4 iamrambo destroys the thread with bs

[Rake2204]

What sort of arguments have you had with your professors over the years that you would want to share?I took a History Since 1300 course that was made up of three grades: a mid-term, a final, and a term paper on a commodity of our choice. I passed both tests with ease and knew I did a more than serviceable job on my commodity paper (on tulips) so I assumed I passed.

I was wrong.

I didn't check my grades until mid-summer because I felt I had no reason. Once I got around to it and realized I failed, I notified my instructor via e-mail (I was home for the summer). His first response claimed I never turned the paper in. I then wrote back reminding him that he'd referenced reading my paper on the last day of class.

Then, I got a smarmy response stating that he'd submitted my paper to some sort of fraud checking site and it turned out to be, like, 87% fraudulent or something. He then became a little bit of a wise guy and ended with something to the effect of, "It's clear the only original piece of your work was the opening paragraph referencing your family."

I wrote the paper entirely from scratch. I suggested it turned up similar to other papers because all reports on tulips are going to cover the same things (tulips, Netherlands, Dutch, Turkey, boom, Ottoman Empire, etc.). It was freeing to know I was so right and he was so wrong, for I had no doubt things would end up in my favor.

In the end, in anti-climatic fashion, it wasn't until I was back on campus and able to meet him in person that I was able to get my paper properly graded. He acknowledged complete fault and mentioned the website in question had created many issues for him in terms of picking out frauds. I passed and it was neat.

TL;DR Prof failed me because he wrongly accused me of turning in someone else's term paper. We had an e-mail battle and I won, because I was right.

[Graviton]

What was the saying, those who can do, those who can't teach. Philosophers just talk in circles, scientists actually contribute to society. If you try to debate on their terms, you will probably "lose". But if you introduce some reality/facts to your arguments their illusions fall apart.

[Akrazotile]

Just show the professor your c0ck

[IamRAMBO24]

inb4 iamrambo destroys the thread with bs

1. Aristotle - founder of Science.

2. Bacon - introduced the inductive method and father of modern Science.

3. Descartes - introduced mathematics, the idea of certainty, and the method of deduction to pave the way for Newton.

4. Berkeley questions the authenticity of materialism.

5. Hume destroys materialism outright.

6. John Stuart Mill's Scientific methodology is actually the one being used in the educational system today. Not Newton's. Not Einstein's falsification. It's JSM. What has he ever invented? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact this methodology has already been disproven at yielding truths. Has anything great ever come out of the public educational system? If you are honest, you will say no. Dude needs to know his sh*t before he takes on a PHD. Just saying.

[IamRAMBO24]

I just re-read OPs post and he was just going up against sh*tty ole religion. Why don't you play with the big boys OP? Turn it into a philosophy vs science debate. It's always funny to see a philosopher destroy these science nerds.

[nathanjizzle]

what is their really to argue? science doesnt have the answer to why this realm exists, nor can it theorize, because it is based on worldly observations, not spiritual or a higher power. the "big bang" isnt a theory of how life and this realm was created, it is a theory of what happened to get to this point, not "why" or "who" happened.

Religion however, can create theories, because its based on spirituality and a higher power. However it cant be proven.

so what is their to argue again? you cant disprove either with the other, just 2 men trying to outjerk eachother.

[IamRAMBO24]

what is their really to argue? science doesnt have the answer to why this realm exists, nor can it theorize, because it is based on worldly observations, not spiritual or a higher power. the "big bang" isnt a theory of how life and this realm was created, it is a theory of what happened to get to this point, not "why" or "who" happened.

Religion however, can create theories, because its based on spirituality and a higher power. However it cant be proven.

so what is their to argue again? just 2 men trying to outjerk eachother.

You don't gain anything from these arguments because they don't rely on the same premise. It's education. If you are not memorizing sh*t then you sure as hell won't gain any new ideas from these fallacious debates that are circular.

It's the same bullsh*t as nature vs nurture, which is basically the same thing. The real argument has always been mind vs matter, but they tooled it to matter (nurture) vs matter (nature) so it'll be circular and cannot possibly yield any further truths.

[Graviton]

Humans trying to find "The Truth" is same as an ant trying to figure out what's the foot that is crushing it. We will never truly know the answer. But of course the human ego will not stop trying, it's hard for humans to accept the fact that they are merely ants. They are irrelevant to the universe and they have no impact on it as a whole. But that pill is too hard to swallow, we have to believe we are important, that there is some higher power out there looking out for us. God, Hope, Afterlife, Destiny, Justice are all illusions created by humans to make themselves feel more secure about their demise.

Now the people that actually study human perception and tendencies are another story. Their beliefs are based on observation and inner exploration. Eckhart Tolle is a great example of a philosopher that isn't totally full of shit. And that's because he is a combination of a psychologist, scientist, philosopher and spiritual human being. But strictly "philosophers" are as credible as a McDonald's employee.

[miller-time]

Humans trying to find "The Truth" is same as an ant trying to figure out what's the foot that is crushing it.

Why are you comparing an entire species to an individual of another species? The great thing about our species is that we are able to form a collective knowledge and build upon it over time. No individual human will understand everything, and it is unlikely we will understand everything ever, but our ability to both conceive of and record both data and abstract concepts over hundreds and thousands of years (relatively speaking science and even philosophy are still in their infancy) means we have a good shot at understanding a lot of it. Look how far we have come in the past 100 years, and our knowledge, technology and population are all increasing exponentially. We aren't using spoken word and drawing on caves anymore.

[G-train]

Based on your experiences as a student, do you think it is appropriate to get into a long philosophical debate with a professor on a course site? (This is for philosophical differences between the methods of science vs religion - I'm defending the scientific method)?

It is absolutely a respectful argument both ways, but I don't want to come across as being somebody that thinks I know it all. I don't know it all, and I'm just an undergrad student. The professor has a PhD in western philosophy. He is a very down-to-Earth type of person that is very good at what he does.

What sort of arguments have you had with your professors over the years that you would want to share?

I never argued with teachers/professors about subject matter. I agreed to take a course to learn the material within and score a high grade, not to argue with the teacher. Waste of my time.

However it seems your professor is advanced as a philosopher as he has moved his person beyond the extreme limitations of science.

[Graviton]

Why are you comparing an entire species to an individual of another species? The great thing about our species is that we are able to form a collective knowledge and build upon it over time. No individual human will understand everything, and it is unlikely we will understand everything ever, but our ability to both conceive of and record both data and abstract concepts over hundreds and thousands of years (relatively speaking science and even philosophy are still in their infancy) means we have a good shot at understanding a lot of it. Look how far we have come in the past 100 years, and our knowledge, technology and population are all increasing exponentially. We aren't using spoken word and drawing on caves anymore.

Because like an ant humans are stuck on Earth, and they have no control over it. They will in time be wiped out when the sun expands, if not before that by their own hand. We have discovered a lot, but the collective knowledge we form is based on our observations on Earth, but rest of the universe is not same as Earth. We have no idea wtf is out there, we can't just sit here and make theories after looking at a telescope. Thats why we are ants, we think we know the answers after making discoveries on our planet, but the universe is different.

We have almost reached our limit. When we were in caves there was a lot we had to learn. But right now we have slowed down, we know our planet inside out. We already gave up on space travel after realizing our current technology isn't enough to reach the visions in Star Trek. We are facing the issue of overpopulation, and our resources are slowly running out. We can't really do much anymore, our peak was the moon landing and internet. There isn't anything left to discover on Earth.

[bladefd]

Get specific, what are you arguing about and tell us your stance.

Here's the gist of the debate and you tell me if it's worth continuing it..

I started the debate talking about how I believe that if you cannot prove something beyond a reasonable doubt with some evidence, you keep the problem open until you have more information. "I don't know how life came to exist so ____." Religion does not follow this - religion follows the logic that god created everything on basis of faith so their problem is solved already.

He points out that if we take the view of not believing something without evidence then that would be irrational since that would not allow us to hold beliefs that we haven't scientifically proved. i.e. importance of ethics

I respond that the line between rationality & irrationality is blurred. Also, there is no way to absolutely prove something in science because we would have to prove something is true in all possible circumstances in the universe so science deals with what we can show most evidence for. i.e. we cannot show evidence for god so god would fall outside the realm of 'reason'

He points out science focuses on simplicity so if you have two theories, you choose the simpler theory (I think he is referring to Occam's razor). Occam's razor has not been scientifically proven yet science still takes into account simplicity. That blurs the line between scientific and non-scientific and contradicts the view that you don't believe something without evidence since occam's razor hasn't been proved yet scientists still consider it.

That's where it is at.

He is focusing more on the scientific foundation instead of the specific question of god. My stance is you can have an opinion but until you have some evidence for it, you cannot argue with certainty that your belief is correct. Your official stance you keep open/blank until you have evidence but you can still have some personal opinion. A religious person doesn't have their official stance open since they think with certainty that their answer is god (atheist also thinks with certainty that their answer is correct). I don't believe either ways with certainty - my stance is open/agnostic.

[bladefd]

We have almost reached our limit. When we were in caves there was a lot we had to learn. But right now we have slowed down, we know our planet inside out. We already gave up on space travel after realizing our current technology isn't enough to reach the visions in Star Trek. We are facing the issue of overpopulation, and our resources are slowly running out. We can't really do much anymore, our peak was the moon landing and internet. There isn't anything left to discover on Earth.

People have been thinking that for many many generations. Every time, something new is found or created that breaks the boundaries. We are far from our limits knowing where we have come since the beginning of homo sapiens sapiens.

Everything that we know and can do is a work in progress. NASA, for instance, is spending millions on coming up with a way to upgrade space travel from simple rocket fuel/jets in their Jet Propulsion Lab. Perhaps a solar sail or something that can allow us to significantly speed up space travel and to make it more affordable.

Internet is still new and there is much to be done. We have not even seen much of our own oceans on Earth to know everything that is down there. There's much still left to discover on our own planet and we haven't even started on a lot of the questions in physics/biology/chemistry/etc that we have yet to answer. So many questions, and humanity is still in its infancy! Marvelous if you think about it.

[Graviton]

People have been thinking that for many many generations. Every time, something new is found or created that breaks the boundaries. We are far from our limits knowing where we have come since the beginning of homo sapiens sapiens.

Everything that we know and can do is a work in progress. NASA, for instance, is spending millions on coming up with a way to upgrade space travel from simple rocket fuel/jets in their Jet Propulsion Lab. Perhaps a solar sail or something that can allow us to significantly speed up space travel and to make it more affordable.

Internet is still new and there is much to be done. We have not even seen much of our own oceans on Earth to know everything that is down there. There's much still left to discover on our own planet and we haven't even started on a lot of the questions in physics/biology/chemistry/etc that we have yet to answer. So many questions, and humanity is still in its infancy! Marvelous if you think about it.

Eh idk, seems all that's left to discover is a lot smaller in scale than moon landing and internet was back in the day. What did we get after the internet? Iphones? Drones?

I doubt we have much left, we use the mineral resources of our planet to create new inventions. Our discoveries are limited to what we have But we are at our peak currently, we don't have much else to create. We already dug deep and found all the minerals available. Unless we discover some new element and light speed space travel, we are doomed on this planet. And since we need oxygen to survive and there is none to be found anywhere near us, we can't travel and discover what's truly out there. We can still progress in certain areas on our planet, but in the end we can't control the climate or the sun. Nature will wipe us out sooner or later if we don't find a new home.

[miller-time]

We have almost reached our limit. When we were in caves there was a lot we had to learn. But right now we have slowed down, we know our planet inside out. We already gave up on space travel after realizing our current technology isn't enough to reach the visions in Star Trek. We are facing the issue of overpopulation, and our resources are slowly running out. We can't really do much anymore, our peak was the moon landing and internet. There isn't anything left to discover on Earth.

No, funding has been pulled because there is no more cold war. Space travel is still an ongoing pursuit, but the threat of another super power controlling high ground has gone and the investment gains are not as certain and so long term that people (politicians and corporations) would rather put their money into something more immediate. Like banking or resources. If we were motivated we could probably get a man on Mars in a decade or so. We could send more probes and rovers to the other planets. We could build huge telescopic arrays that span the solar system. We could build more space stations. But the people with the money aren't motivated to do so.

[Graviton]

No, funding has been pulled because there is no more cold war. Space travel is still an ongoing pursuit, but the threat of another super power controlling high ground has gone and the investment gains are not as certain and so long term that people (politicians and corporations) would rather put their money into something more immediate. Like banking or resources. If we were motivated we could probably get a man on Mars in a decade or so. We could send more probes and rovers to the other planets. We could build huge telescopic arrays that span the solar system. We could build more space stations. But the people with the money aren't motivated to do so.
Hence why we are limited. Our governments care more about fighting each other in this senseless game of who has the bigger dick. When we could be using those resources on improving our society and progressing faster.

There is a lot of things they COULD do, but obviously they won't. 99% of the population has no control over what the other 1% does. Another way we resemble ants following the Queen.

[DukeDelonte13]

i'm sure some profs will appreciate it but a lot more will think you are a d*ck.

[Nick Young]

What kind of bozo studies philosophy at University? That shit's meant to be read on your own son. Your job prospects lookin slim son.

[Rose]

In my 4 philosophy classes I've taken all my professors have encouraged that type of discussion.:lol

[DukeDelonte13]

What kind of bozo studies philosophy at University? That shit's meant to be read on your own son. Your job prospects lookin slim son.


i had to take on as a requirement. I couldn't tell you one thing i learned from that class. I just remember my professor was a really strange guy.

I shouldn't talk though, i was a poly sci major.

[The Iron Sheik]

none of it really matters. who's right. who's wrong. it won't change anything other than making one person feel better about themselves. just focus on making your tens of thousands of dollars of debt worth it as best you can

[niko]

i had to take on as a requirement. I couldn't tell you one thing i learned from that class. I just remember my professor was a really strange guy.

I shouldn't talk though, i was a poly sci major.
It's really common to have some class like that as a core requirement. People here like to make declarations about shit without knowing anything about it.

[9erempiree]

You don't debate a professor. You merely ask him questions.

Remember, you are the student and he or she is teaching you. If you don't agree, ask questions.

I do it here all the time. I try to teach the young folks about basketball. There job is to ask me questions.

[RidonKs]

Hence why we are limited. Our governments care more about fighting each other in this senseless game of who has the bigger dick. When we could be using those resources on improving our society and progressing faster.

There is a lot of things they COULD do, but obviously they won't. 99% of the population has no control over what the other 1% does. Another way we resemble ants following the Queen.
that's a pretty convenient response for somebody who just doesn't want to do anything. look back through history and you will find that hopelessness is the overwhelming attitude of the masses whenever they're witnessing the rotten aspects of everyday life. that goes for tyranny, slavery, just fcking violence for the sake of violence on the street, bullying, etc etc. it's easy, and imo very understandable, to assume the stance that change is impossible because this is just the way things are.

but on the other hand, its perfectly and almost glaringly obvious that significant progress has been made in eliminating and reigning in a lot of the horrors that have plagued civilization. i just named a few but the list is long. i mean jeez it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to see that.

that's because people only remain hopeless until they get a glimpse of hope. that shift probably occurs on an individual basis mostly just by witnessing optimism and activism of other people. "hmm... if you're trying to make things better, maybe its not so hopeless. maybe i should try too. maybe whats going on in the world right now only seems immutable and permanent but in reality its ridiculously flexible".

it starts small and grows because people who ARE hopeful, who DO see the possibility for change, work their asses off to make it come true. and eventually you reach a critical mass at which point the powers that be are compelled to acquiesce... or thrown out of their role by force.

you should always be immediately skeptical of any ideology or doctrine that suggests there is absolutely nothing to be done. they're usually the ideas pushed by the people who don't want anything to be done.

[RidonKs]

good professors are happy to have a conversation, even a mildly contentious one, with their students about topics in their wheelhouse. sounds like this dude fits that bill. just don't do it in class. your classmates will think you're a pretentious jackass who's wasting their time (i speak from experience) and your professor won't engage you in the same way he would in a private meeting. set up an appointment and go talk to him for an hour. and if you're really looking to either a) impress him, b) convince him, or c) gain some real insight and understanding by seriously considering his arguments, you should prepare and try to narrow down your disagreement into a few fundamental concepts/propositions



though personally i don't think the topic's really worth a whole lot of consideration beyond just a surface reading


If your professor is a true philosopher, he would easily destroy you.
jesus h christ you're a fcking nitwit :facepalm :lol

[IamRAMBO24]

you should always be immediately skeptical of any ideology or doctrine that suggests there is absolutely nothing to be done. they're usually the ideas pushed by the people who don't want anything to be done.

So let me get this straight, you are saying the people who believe there's nothing to be done are usually the same people who won't do anything about it?

Get the f*ck out of here! Wow you went deep with that one.

:facepalm

[cuad]

Arguments in class are for autists like Rambo and conspiracy nuts.

[9erempiree]

Nobody wants to hear an argument in class. We want to get the F out of there.

Professors don't want to hear it either.

I hope you guys are in your lower division courses because arguing in the upper division level is stupid.

[IamRAMBO24]

Nobody wants to hear an argument in class. We want to get the F out of there.

Professors don't want to hear it either.

I hope you guys are in your lower division courses because arguing in the upper division level is stupid.

This is what's wrong with education. Greek philosophers in the first form of education wanted their students to question them. They didn't tell the students what and how to think nor did they give them a list of vocabs and dates to memorize, they would give their lectures and then encourage the students to have an open discussion on the subject. There were no tests, no seats, and no notes taken; students weren't expected to just memorize like a lost chimp, but to engage the teachers directly.

Expecting the students to just sit there, write notes, and repeat it on a test isn't engaging the students. A good teacher who truly wants to teach will allow the student to freely express themselves in an open discussion, and if he feels he is wrong, then he will encourage him to research the topic more and meet up with him again for another open discussion.

As is, telling kids to stfu and just write notes is stumping their creative curiosity, which is really the root of real learning.

[IamRAMBO24]

Here's the gist of the debate and you tell me if it's worth continuing it..

I started the debate talking about how I believe that if you cannot prove something beyond a reasonable doubt with some evidence, you keep the problem open until you have more information. "I don't know how life came to exist so ____." Religion does not follow this - religion follows the logic that god created everything on basis of faith so their problem is solved already.

He points out that if we take the view of not believing something without evidence then that would be irrational since that would not allow us to hold beliefs that we haven't scientifically proved. i.e. importance of ethics

I respond that the line between rationality & irrationality is blurred. Also, there is no way to absolutely prove something in science because we would have to prove something is true in all possible circumstances in the universe so science deals with what we can show most evidence for. i.e. we cannot show evidence for god so god would fall outside the realm of 'reason'

He points out science focuses on simplicity so if you have two theories, you choose the simpler theory (I think he is referring to Occam's razor). Occam's razor has not been scientifically proven yet science still takes into account simplicity. That blurs the line between scientific and non-scientific and contradicts the view that you don't believe something without evidence since occam's razor hasn't been proved yet scientists still consider it.

That's where it is at.

He is focusing more on the scientific foundation instead of the specific question of god. My stance is you can have an opinion but until you have some evidence for it, you cannot argue with certainty that your belief is correct. Your official stance you keep open/blank until you have evidence but you can still have some personal opinion. A religious person doesn't have their official stance open since they think with certainty that their answer is god (atheist also thinks with certainty that their answer is correct). I don't believe either ways with certainty - my stance is open/agnostic.

I agree with you completely, but you have to understand professors have to parrot the outline of the curriculum or they will be fired. I believe he secretly agrees with you because you make some sense, but openly he is not allowed to.

[ballup]

Based on your experiences as a student, do you think it is appropriate to get into a long philosophical debate with a professor on a course site? (This is for philosophical differences between the methods of science vs religion - I'm defending the scientific method)?

It is absolutely a respectful argument both ways, but I don't want to come across as being somebody that thinks I know it all. I don't know it all, and I'm just an undergrad student. The professor has a PhD in western philosophy. He is a very down-to-Earth type of person that is very good at what he does.

What sort of arguments have you had with your professors over the years that you would want to share?
Depending on the tone of the debate. If it is more of a organized conversation, I think a few professors won't mind. I think it's best to switch between asking questions and making declarative statements to keep the debate civil.

Not sure if this applies to your professor, but teaching isn't the primary purpose for most professors. Most of them are doing research, but are required to teach on the side.

I never got to an personal argument with any of my professors. Closest to that I can remember is this one instance where a new professor was going over an example. Don't remember the subject, but it wasn't well explained. I worked out the problem and got a different answer than she did. The smartest students got the same answer as I did. The professor had a hard time accepting that she made a mistake.

[Jello]

I agree with you completely, but you have to understand professors have to parrot the outline of the curriculum or they will be fired. I believe he secretly agrees with you because you make some sense, but openly he is not allowed to.
???? They make their own curriculum you fking dolt.

[IamRAMBO24]

???? They make their own curriculum you fking dolt.

So they write their own textbooks?

[Jello]

So they write their own textbooks?
Idiot doesn't even know what curriculum means. :lol :facepalm at this downy that failed and is now deflecting the blame onto professors and education. There's a reason why you post this garbage on a BASKETBALL forum and haven't had any meaningful discussion in real life.

[IamRAMBO24]

Idiot doesn't even know what curriculum means. :lol :facepalm at this downy that failed and is now deflecting the blame onto professors and education. There's a reason why you post this garbage on a BASKETBALL forum and haven't had any meaningful discussion in real life.


In some states, textbooks are selected for all students at the state level, and decisions made by larger states, such as California and Texas, that represent a considerable market for textbook publishers and can exert influence over the content of textbooks generally, thereby influencing the curriculum taught in public schools,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Curriculum

[Jello]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Curriculum
Why'd I do it? That irresistible urge to let rambo know hes a dumbass everytime i read a post of his. I'm out.

[IamRAMBO24]

Why'd I do it? That irresistible urge to let rambo know hes a dumbass everytime i read a post of his. I'm out.

You're still calling me a dumba*s after I proved you wrong? Let me guess, you don't agree with the source I linked you to, well I can link you to another source if you can man up and stick around for a while.

[9erempiree]

Just a bad idea debating a professor. These are people who live and breathe the curriculum being taught. Are all of them geniuses? Nope. They do know what they are teaching and been teaching the same crap for years.

While a student may be very opinionated, the youth and lack of knowledge of the subject will get them embarrassed. These professors know the ins-outs of the topic at hand. You guys don't think they haven't heard every aspect of the argument.

I tried arguing with the professor once and brought up stuff that I didn't think she would refute to, but she did, and continue to bring up more than I can handle. I just let it die out because any further rebuttal to her counter-argument would be embarrassing.

[Frozen1]

No matter what you try, the professor will always beat you in an argument.

Last week in college, my class got into and argument with a professor about some national government social programs. Almost all of the class was against it and the professor was in favor of it.

After 45 minutes he destroyed each argument against it and let the students who were arguing with him shook and speechless.

[9erempiree]

One big reason why professors will always win an argument is because, his one opinion versus 30 different opinions from a class. His argument will hold more weight while the 30 other opinions are crap put into one. He has the luxury of getting fed perspective from others and refute them. While the student is merely stuck in his own view versus one professor.

He is basically getting perspective from a class and turning it around. While his argument may be wrong but he is consistent with his. While the classes different perspective can be used against them, since there are so many.

Lose lose.

Like someone mentioned earlier, in order to impress -or- stump/**** with the professor, you are better doing it on your own time. Is it worth it to go through that trouble of meeting the professor for this? Nope. Therefore, it is not worth it to do it in class.

[9erempiree]

I don't know it all, and I'm just an undergrad student. The professor has a PhD in western philosophy. He is a very down-to-Earth type of person that is very good at what he does.


This basically sums up what you should or should not do.

[shlver]

One big reason why professors will always win an argument is because, his one opinion versus 30 different opinions from a class. His argument will hold more weight while the 30 other opinions are crap put into one. He has the luxury of getting fed perspective from others and refute them. While the student is merely stuck in his own view versus one professor.

He is basically getting perspective from a class and turning it around. While his argument may be wrong but he is consistent with his. While the classes different perspective can be used against them, since there are so many.

Lose lose.

Like someone mentioned earlier, in order to impress -or- stump/**** with the professor, you are better doing it on your own time. Is it worth it to go through that trouble of meeting the professor for this? Nope. Therefore, it is not worth it to do it in class.
It is worth it if you look at studying your major as a full time job. Professors have office hours for a reason. Many people don't ask questions in class for a variety of reasons but professors set up weekly office hours and welcome appointments for students to answer questions and have discussions. How else are you going to get recommendation letters if you're not fostering a relationship with your professor? Without your effort, you're just another face in a sea of students to them. Making the effort of going in and making discussion has landed me a good job in undergrad making money for the last two years while doing my capstone research and connections in the medical program. You will only get out what effort you put in.

[shlver]

good professors are happy to have a conversation, even a mildly contentious one, with their students about topics in their wheelhouse. sounds like this dude fits that bill. just don't do it in class. your classmates will think you're a pretentious jackass who's wasting their time (i speak from experience) and your professor won't engage you in the same way he would in a private meeting. set up an appointment and go talk to him for an hour. and if you're really looking to either a) impress him, b) convince him, or c) gain some real insight and understanding by seriously considering his arguments, you should prepare and try to narrow down your disagreement into a few fundamental concepts/propositions



though personally i don't think the topic's really worth a whole lot of consideration beyond just a surface reading


jesus h christ you're a fcking nitwit :facepalm :lol
Basically this. You shouldn't be "debating" during class or lecture time.

[mr.big35]

Iamrambo has to come and derail this thread with his bs

[bladefd]

Basically this. You shouldn't be "debating" during class or lecture time.

No, it isn't during class or lecture. It is on a course website setup for the class so the debate is after class time.

Seems like the majority think it's not smart to argue with a professor who has heard all kinds of arguments. TBH, I rarely get into open debates/arguments with professors or even teachers back in K-12, but I thought philosophy is an exception. Philosophical method is based around open arguments going back to the days of the ancient Chinese & Hindus through the Greeks and Romans, middle-ages, etc. Socratic circle stems from the ancient styles of philosophical discourse where everybody has equal standing and ideas are fought for/against around the circle.

I guess I don't have very much credibility yet as an undergrad going up against somebody with PhD so I'm entering new territory. It's one thing to debate and have very long philosophical arguments with friends and family on FB, but something else debating with an experienced philosopher.

[shlver]

Here's the gist of the debate and you tell me if it's worth continuing it..

I started the debate talking about how I believe that if you cannot prove something beyond a reasonable doubt with some evidence, you keep the problem open until you have more information. "I don't know how life came to exist so ____." Religion does not follow this - religion follows the logic that god created everything on basis of faith so their problem is solved already.

He points out that if we take the view of not believing something without evidence then that would be irrational since that would not allow us to hold beliefs that we haven't scientifically proved. i.e. importance of ethics

I respond that the line between rationality & irrationality is blurred. Also, there is no way to absolutely prove something in science because we would have to prove something is true in all possible circumstances in the universe so science deals with what we can show most evidence for. i.e. we cannot show evidence for god so god would fall outside the realm of 'reason'


He points out science focuses on simplicity so if you have two theories, you choose the simpler theory (I think he is referring to Occam's razor). Occam's razor has not been scientifically proven yet science still takes into account simplicity. That blurs the line between scientific and non-scientific and contradicts the view that you don't believe something without evidence since occam's razor hasn't been proved yet scientists still consider it.

That's where it is at.

He is focusing more on the scientific foundation instead of the specific question of god. My stance is you can have an opinion but until you have some evidence for it, you cannot argue with certainty that your belief is correct. Your official stance you keep open/blank until you have evidence but you can still have some personal opinion. A religious person doesn't have their official stance open since they think with certainty that their answer is god (atheist also thinks with certainty that their answer is correct). I don't believe either ways with certainty - my stance is open/agnostic.
Well, that's not really true. If and only if the two theories make the same exact predictions can you use occams razor as a distinguishing principle. This is rarely the case.

[RidonKs]

Seems like the majority think it's not smart to argue with a professor who has heard all kinds of arguments.
and the logical progression of that line of thinking is that the professor is always right. it's not really a matter of him always "beating you", which i still think is a really absurd way to look at discussion -- as if it's a goddamn boxing match.

if the professor has already looked at the issues in such depth, really has the ins and outs figured, knows every conceivable argument and counterargument that could possibly arise, then why even bother? just parrot his opinion in the class and in the school and for the rest of your life because he's obviously put himself in a position to be "correct".

but we know that's a giant pile of dogshit just from experience alone. that goes especially for the humanities, philosophy or social studies or economics, where distinctions become blurry and extenuating circumstances are literally endless.

but just as in the hard sciences, the so-called experts who have reigned supreme as intellectual giants of their fields aren't the guys whose names now get drilled into our collective psyche. the household names are the radicals who look past the status quo because they see rocks can be overturned, light can be shed, and progress can be made. they're the ones who go to school, meet professors with hardened expert opinions that they've formulated over so many long hard years of research and contemplation and insight, and try to think differently. it's absolutely analogous to what i was talking about in the first post, even though there the subject was social policy and here its i guess academia.



seriously blade, don't fixate on the fact that its a "debate" and there has to be a winner and a loser and you're obviously going to be the loser. that's probably the case but that's not whats important. it's a discussion. you're interested in the topic and you think you have strong arguments to support your case. so go there, employ them as best you can, reconsider their strength, probe his counterarguments, and see what you learn. in the end, the real debate thats honest and open should be happening in your own head. if you come down on the same side, great. if you change your mind, even better.

btw if you want to do some research on this, check out "The Will to Believe" by William James. it bears directly on the argument you're having with your professor.

[ILLsmak]

TL;DR Prof failed me because he wrongly accused me of turning in someone else's term paper. We had an e-mail battle and I won, because I was right.

Welllll,

I've dealt with this shit my whole life basically. No one has ever accused me of that specifically, but same ideas.

It's not about winning or losing, and it's stupid to engage them. In that 'sphere' they have the power. I learned this very young. It doesn't mean you back down from him, but understand they aren't playing fair. If you are gonna get them, you have to get them at the right time and STRIKE WITH FEROCITY. Failing people cuz you dislike them is some psychopath shit.

On that note, don't argue with your professor in class.

Don't argue with people you think are wrong. That's a protip from yaboy. "Argue" with people who have similar ideas but slight differences; argue with people who you want to understand more clearly. There's really no point in talking about a subject with someone where two sides are already fleshed out and divided.

And if you think dude wants to talk about it, invite him out for coffee or something and be like yo...

I've had some good discussions with people even tho, as I've said many times, I didn't **** with any form of school for very long.

ARGUE TO LEARN, NOT TO BE RIGHT. THANKU.

-Smak