Arguments in Philosophy class

[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.

[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