Arguments in Philosophy class

[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.

[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. 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. 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/Educat...tes#Curriculum

[Jello]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...tes#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.