Arguments in Philosophy 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

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