The Instigator
blackkid
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Philosophy is of greater value than science to students.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,242 times Debate No: 61760
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)

 

blackkid

Pro

First round is acceptance and opening argument.

Base assumption: The person in question is fully able to apply and understand the material being taught. This rules out children or other groups who would not apply.
UchihaMadara

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
blackkid

Pro

I'll use three points.

1. Versatility: Philosophy opens gates to many fields instead of a select few ( https://philosophy.as.uky.edu... ) and many of those fields are very profitable.

2. Applicability: Philosophy is simply universally applicable ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., http://www.scu.edu..., http://philosophy.uncc.edu...) as shown with it's versatility (above as well). From the third source:

"Another, more professional reason why you should all study philosophy is that it provides perfect preparation for the entrance exams required for law, medicine, business, computer science, or engineering schools, or graduate school in the humanities. Proof of this is that philosophy majors perform among the top 10, often top 5, on most of the exams such as LSAT, MCAT, GRE and the like. So you don't have to become a doctor of philosophy (a Ph.D) but you can become an ethical lawyer, or an engineer or computer scientist who has better understanding of the world. The combinations are limited only by your imagination."

The Art of Thinking is beyond a doubt one of the strongest skills there is.

3. Practicality:

"What makes philosophy different? It can seem self-absorbed; philosophers themselves joke about Arthur Koestler's definition: "the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose." But it also is a tool (like history and religious studies) for thinking about everything else, and every profession from law and medicine to motorcycle maintenance.

It's also one of the most competitive disciplines. When I was a science editor I sometimes saw readers' reports on colleagues' philosophy manuscripts. There were often pages and pages of challenges to the authors' arguments, concluding with a recommendation to publish anyway. This could be confusing to faculty editorial boards that approved or rejected books. It had to be explained to them that philosophers honor each other by disagreeing with each other. The number of objections could be a sign of the importance of the arguments. From such experiences I learned the difference between the merely wrong, and the valuable wrong."

( http://www.theatlantic.com... )

Philosophy is not just the art of sitting in a circle and making things up. Philosophy is Life. Philosophy is what grants many meanings to many things, from Ethics to Law, from Medicine to Business Magnate, these are the cores of the system that cannot be ignored. A person who does not have a backing in philosophy is simply worse off; they do not do as well on tests, they limit themselves to a very specific and ever shrinking instead of ever expanding discipline, and they can only take one route when they take on a science, for instance biological sciences will not yield aerodynamic results however philosophy can take you down many, many roads as cited above.
UchihaMadara

Con

The burden of proof in this debate is relatively simple: my opponent attempts to show that philosophy is more important than science in terms of its value to students, and I attempt to prove the opposite-- that science is more important. I will present my opening argument within my rebuttals to Pro's constructive case.

R1) Versatility

Pro claims that a degree in philosophy opens up occupations in a variety of different fields. However, his only source for that claim is the homepage of a random university's philosophy department, which is clearly biased, as it is has been purposefully crafted to try convincing students to select philosophy as their major. In reality, philosophy has very limited versatility, as shown by the fact that philosophy majors have an above-average unemployment rate; in fact, this high unemployment rate is such a prominent outlier that philosophy even made number four on Forbes' top-ten list of worst majors [1].

Now, Pro may argue that science doesn't perform very well in this area either, seeing that a science major's occupational choices are generally limited to the field they specialized in. However, science as a category encompasses many more specialties than philosophy does (e.g. microbiology, chemistry, quantum physics, ecology, etc), so in that sense, science IS far more versatile than philosophy. This contention goes in my favor.

R2) Applicability

Pro asserts that philosophy has much more real world application because it teaches students the "art of thinking". To support this, he cites a correlation between philosophy majors and high intelligence indicators. However, I believe that my opponent is confusing cause and effect, here; this correlation would only show that philosophy has significant value to students if majoring in philosophy was *causing* that high intelligence. Of course, that cannot be true-- taking an advanced course of academic study at the age of a college student, which is right around the age that the brain exits its development stage, does not "increase" your intelligence. It is much more likely that it is the other way around, with people who already have high intelligence choosing to major in philosophy because their brains can handle the difficult concepts being taught. Thus, we see that Pro's statistic here does not really support the resolution at all. And besides that, philosophy majors are actually second on the list of highest IQs and standardized test scores-- number one on the list is Physics majors [2]. Even by Pro's own fallacious reasoning, a science major is superior to a philosophy major!

But aside from the statistics, let's go back to Pro's original claim that philosophy has more applicability because it teaches students the "art of thinking". There are a few problems with this, obviously. Firstly, in terms of professional utility, simply learning *how* to think is fairly useless without substantial technical knowledge to know *what* to think. Pro's claim that you can obtain a job in the scientific field with just a philosophy major is patently false. Secondly, one can learn the "art of thinking" just as easily from studying science-- the extensive research and data analysis involved in the majority of modern, higher-level science curriculums involve many aspects of our mental faculties, quite effectively teaching the "art of thinking". The sciences clearly have much greater professional applicability than philosophy does.

R3) Practicality

Pro argues that philosophy has more practical value than science because it "is what grants meanings to many things" and "can take you down many, many roads". He starts off with a quoted anecdote about the competitiveness of academic philosophical circles; however, this really proves nothing... not only is the same level of intellectual rigor present in the scientific community (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, reproducible experiments, etc.), but intellectual rigor doesn't even vaguely connect to the topic of the contention at hand: practicality. The rest of Pro's case is full of bare assertions that philosophy grants meaning to everything and allows for a broader view of reality than science does. Putting aside for a moment that this is all his subjective opinion (I could just as easily assert that knowing how the universe works is essential to a comprehensive view of reality), I must ask: why does any of this matter? What practical output does knowing the "deeper meanings" of everything yield? The only honest answer is NONE.

Meanwhile, if we shift over to the sciences, we see that there are numerous practical benefits. From microbiology, we get potential cures for cancer and ways to grow synthetic organs. From quantum mechanics, we get cutting-edge technological innovations such as the quantum supercomputer. From environmental science, we get cost-effective solutions to global warming and its related problems. None of that requires any knowledge of the "deeper, philosophical truths" of reality, yet that is exactly the sort of progress which we value most. Science is far, far superior to philosophy in terms of practicality.

==========================

In conclusion, I have thoroughly refuted each of my opponent's opening arguments, turning every one of them into a plus point for the sciences. It is evident that science poses much greater value to students than philosophy because of its greater versatility in the job market, its occupational applicability, and the practical output it yields in general.
The resolution is negated.

[1] http://www.forbes.com...
[2] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Debate Round No. 2
blackkid

Pro

Section 1:

"Pro claims that a degree in philosophy opens up occupations in a variety of different fields. However, his only source for that claim is the homepage of a random university's philosophy department, which is clearly biased, as it is has been purposefully crafted to try convincing students to select philosophy as their major.", Fallacy: Lying, subsection "Misrepresentation".

"Misrepresentation: If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent"s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)

No evidence is given that there is "clear bias". It is a baseless claim.

"In reality, philosophy has very limited versatility, as shown by the fact that philosophy majors have an above-average unemployment rate; in fact, this high unemployment rate is such a prominent outlier that philosophy even made number four on Forbes' top-ten list of worst majors", Fallacy: Slanting:

"Slanting: This error occurs when the issue is not treated fairly because of misrepresenting the evidence by, say, suppressing part of it, or misconstruing some of it, or simply lying. See the following related fallacies: Confirmation Bias, Lying, Misrepresentation, Questionable Premise, Quoting out of Context, Straw Man, Suppressed Evidence."

The source given lacks a date, it outlines a very specific focus (Philosophy & Religious Studies, likely known as "Theology"), and it doesn't substantiate anything relating to philosophy as a whole. The opponent is using vagueness as a means to substantiate their claim versus using legitimate considerations making note that philosophy is a very wide spectrum of fields so to be able to substantiate "Philosophy" as a field would be incredibly difficult considering it ranges from theology to bioethics and beyond. I am not accusing my opponent of Misdirection particularly because I do not believe it was purposeful.

Section 2:

"Pro asserts that philosophy has much more real world application because it teaches students the "art of thinking". To support this, he cites a correlation between philosophy majors and high intelligence indicators. However, I believe that my opponent is confusing cause and effect, here; this correlation would only show that philosophy has significant value to students if majoring in philosophy was *causing* that high intelligence.", there is no evidence of the implication considering the sources and there is no evidence of correlation as causation on my part. There is no claim made that Philosophy and it's study causes high intelligence. My opponent is performing "Equivocation" (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) using the term "intelligence" in multiple ways; the sources indicate that increasing your knowledge and ability to think well helps improve test scores however my opponent indicates that philosophy would change your physiological innate intelligence (not as a synonym for knowledge) which no such claim has ever been made.

"Of course, that cannot be true-- taking an advanced course of academic study at the age of a college student, which is right around the age that the brain exits its development stage, does not "increase" your intelligence. It is much more likely that it is the other way around, with people who already have high intelligence choosing to major in philosophy because their brains can handle the difficult concepts being taught.", unsupported.

"Thus, we see that Pro's statistic here does not really support the resolution at all.", due to the unsupported nature of the first two claims this is Fallacy: Strawman

"Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn"t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent"s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)

The clear misrepresentation of my argument with no evidence for the misrepresentation is the grounds.

"And besides that, philosophy majors are actually second on the list of highest IQs and standardized test scores-- number one on the list is Physics majors [2]. Even by Pro's own fallacious reasoning, a science major is superior to a philosophy major!", Fallacy: Non-Sequitur, subsection "Irrelevant Reason"

"This fallacy is a kind of non sequitur in which the premises are wholly irrelevant to drawing the conclusion."

(http://www.iep.utm.edu...)

The basis is that on top of the Strawman there was never a claim at any point by either side that your Intelligence Quotient had anything to do with the ranking of importance for philosophical education nor does it prove or provide that any specific form of scientific field is preferably better for any given student. It is completely disconnected from the arguments presented. The factual value of the source, even if questionable, is also not important to the point.

Section 3:

"Pro argues that philosophy has more practical value than science because it "is what grants meanings to many things" and "can take you down many, many roads". He starts off with a quoted anecdote about the competitiveness of academic philosophical circles; however, this really proves nothing... not only is the same level of intellectual rigor present in the scientific community (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, reproducible experiments, etc.), but intellectual rigor doesn't even vaguely connect to the topic of the contention at hand: practicality.", unsupported. There are two claims here,

A) That the "same level of intellectual rigor" is present in the scientific community and that the listed examples can be considered equivalent(?) based on some criteria.

B) "Intellectual rigor doesn't even vaguely connect to the topic ...", but there's no explanation as to why not. It's just a claim.

The burden of proof for claims falls on the claimant so until these two claims are supported I don't have to answer for them because I can't. No counter would make sense.

"The rest of Pro's case is full of bare assertions that philosophy grants meaning to everything and allows for a broader view of reality than science does.", requires citation at no point did I say that. I closed specifically reiterating the sources I cited and the citations I made so there are no new claims, no unsupported claims, and no particularly "bare assertions". If there are I will gladly answer for them if you can cite them.

"Putting aside for a moment that this is all his subjective opinion (I could just as easily assert that knowing how the universe works is essential to a comprehensive view of reality), I must ask: why does any of this matter? What practical output does knowing the "deeper meanings" of everything yield? The only honest answer is NONE.", Fallacy: Strawman (again), unsupported (again), and Complex Question:

"You use this fallacy when you frame a question so that some controversial presupposition is made by the wording of the question."

(http://www.iep.utm.edu...)

On the grounds of the final question "Why does any of this matter?" leading into a personal viewpoint that is specifically framed to undermine Philosophy (the art / science of forming and maintaining thought ) as some form of mysticism.

The Strawman is on the basis that I made the claims to begin with representing the idea that one does not need to know of the universe or that there is some form of disconnect between the universe and philosophy [see: Empiricism (http://plato.stanford.edu...) ] and the unsupported claim is that it's my subjective opinion (to which there is no citation because my opponents take on my opinion is wrong).
UchihaMadara

Con

Pro seems to have taken up the hilarious strategy of trying to label each and every one of the refutations I made as being some form of logical fallacy. All I need to do to re-negate the resolution, then, is show that each of his accusations are false.

1. Versatility

a. Pro dismisses my assessment of his biased source, claiming that it is 'baseless'. This is quite ironic because 'baseless' exactly describes Pros dismissal, here. I gave clear, logically-supported reasons to believe that his source is biased: as a university philosophy department's homepage, the writers would have had a vested interest in persuading students to major in that field; furthermore, I cited a more objective source with no such vested interests (i.e. Forbes) that contradicted the assertions in Pro's source. There is nothing even vaguely resembling "misrepresentation" in my analysis of Pro's source. This contention remains refuted, as I have successfully shown that the source upon which its factual accuracy rests is biased/unreliable.

b. Pro attacks my Forbes source by two routes. He first objects that it lacks a date, but this is simply based in a failure to look deeper into the source; if we look at the article from which the linked slide show comes from [1], we can clearly see a date printed on the top: 10/11/2012. This is sufficiently recent for the source to still be considered reliable, as job market trends do not typically fluctuate on a large scale from year to year. Pro's second objection is an attempt at misleading us by taking the fact that philosophy is grouped in with 'religious studies' and claiming that the source is probably talking about theology, rather than philosophy in general. However, there is absolutely no reason to believe this; philosophy is grouped with 'religious studies' simply because they often deal with similar subjects (e.g. morality, the nature of reality, etc.). Both of Pro's objections fail. Forbes can safely be considered an objective, reliable source.

c. Pro does not contest my argument that science as a general field provides an enormous amount of occupational versatility to the point that *even* if Pro's claims hold true (which they don't), studying science would *still* allow for more versatility than studying philosophy. This point alone fully refutes this contention, yet Pro does not even bother to mention it.

2. Applicability

a. Pro accuses me of false equivocation based on a misunderstanding of my argument. My rebuttal is *not* based on any alleged claim of philosophy courses increasing physiological/genetic intelligence. I am fully aware that Pro was using the term 'intelligence' to refer specifically to the ability to think and reason critically, and that is what my rebuttal is based on: since significant increases in critical thinking skills (i.e. intelligence) generally do not occur after the brain has fully matured, it is much more likely that already-intelligent people are attracted to studying philosophy, rather than studying philosophy causing high intelligence. My refutation of this contention holds.

b. In response to my statistic showing that Physics majors actually score higher on standardized tests and IQ tests than Physics majors, Pro calls strawman, saying that IQ only deals with physiological intelligence and is thus irrelevant. First of all, IQ tests can be used as an accurate gauge of critical thinking skills [2], so those scores are still plenty relevant to Pro's contention. And secondly, my source shows that Physics majors score higher on other standardized tests, too-- the same exact tests that Pro was using as intelligence indicators. This point still serves as a turn on Pro's contention.

c. Pro, just like in 1c, fails to address the argument I used to turn this contention in science's favor: science courses regularly exercise our critical thinking/reasoning faculties just much as philosophy courses do, so if we buy Pro's claims about studying philosophy increasing critical thinking ability, we must *also* buy that studying science has the same effect. This negates the resolution since it specifically claims that philosophy has *more* value than science.

3. Practicality

a. Pro claims that my dismissal of his anecdote about philosophy's academic rigor is baseless. However, I am not really sure how to substantiate my claim any further... there is a clear logical gap between descriptions of the competitiveness within scholarly philosophy circles (what he provided) and the practical usages of philosophy (what he was trying to prove). It is PRO's job to bridge this gap. Since he has not done so, whatever point he was trying to make will get appropriately dismissed.

b. Frankly, I am flabbergasted at Pro's response to my point about the bare assertions in his case... he essentially just denies their existence and asks me to point them out to him...
this entire paragraph IS a bare assertion:
"Philosophy is not just the art of sitting in a circle and making things up. Philosophy is Life. Philosophy is what grants many meanings to many things, from Ethics to Law, from Medicine to Business Magnate, these are the cores of the system that cannot be ignored. A person who does not have a backing in philosophy is simply worse off; they do not do as well on tests, they limit themselves to a very specific and ever shrinking instead of ever expanding discipline, and they can only take one route when they take on a science, for instance biological sciences will not yield aerodynamic results however philosophy can take you down many, many roads as cited above."
Allow me to parody this...
"Science is not just the art of standing around in a lab and staring into microscopes. Science is Life. Science is what grants us knowledge of the world around us, from Organic Chemistry to General Relativity, from Kinematics to Cellular Respiration, these are the cores of the system that cannot be ignored. A person who does not have a backing in Science is simply worse off; they do not do as well on tests, they limit themselves to a very superficial and ever static instead of ever expanding discipline, and they can't achieve anything when they take on philosophy, for instance debating the existence of meta-ethical truths will not yield any sort of useful material goods. however Science can take you down many, many roads."
By Pro's standard of necessary substantiation, I have just fully mitigated his argument.

c. Just like in 1c and 2c, Pro doesn't respond to my positive argument! He has not even attempted to contest my points showing the immense practical outputs yielded by scientific research, which, probably more than any other contention, negates the resolution. Pro has not shown that Philosophy yields anything even *close* to that in terms of practical value.

====================================

There isn't much of a conclusion to make... Pro abjectly fails at countering my refutations of his opening argument, and makes no effort at addressing my positive arguments in favor of science over philosophy.
The resolution is negated a thousand times over.

[1] http://www.forbes.com...
[2] http://www.criticalthinking.com...
Debate Round No. 3
blackkid

Pro

"Pro dismisses my assessment of his biased source, claiming that it is 'baseless'. This is quite ironic because 'baseless' exactly describes Pros dismissal, here. I gave clear, logically-supported reasons to believe that his source is biased: as a university philosophy department's homepage, the writers would have had a vested interest in persuading students to major in that field; furthermore, I cited a more objective source with no such vested interests (i.e. Forbes) that contradicted the assertions in Pro's source. There is nothing even vaguely resembling "misrepresentation" in my analysis of Pro's source. This contention remains refuted, as I have successfully shown that the source upon which its factual accuracy rests is biased/unreliable.", it looks like I get to play teacher again...

1. That's not proof of bias. In order to prove bias you have to show, legitimately, that claims are either exaggerated or false however you did neither. You must do more than claim it's biased, because that's a claim, you have to give sound evidence. You've committed ad hominem, "Because the school's philosophy department posted it it's clearly biased." is not valid; that's no different than me saying "Because you think it's biased and you are con you're clearly lying." (http://www.nizkor.org...)

""An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

Example from page (reorganized to fit this):

School: "I believe that Philosophy is a good major/minor."
You: "Of course you would say that, you're the Philosophy Department."
School: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
You: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're the Philosophy Dept, so you have to say that Philosophy is exaggerated. Further, you are just trying to get students,, so I can't believe what you say."

2. Your source is ambiguous. The odds that it is a direct reference to Theology are high because (http://www.salary.com..., http://www.dailyfinance.com..., http://www.nydailynews.com... http://www.thinkadvisor.com...) it comes up multiple times throughout the years. Not once is "Philosophy" listed particularly because it's not a simple "field".

"Pro attacks my Forbes source by two routes. He first objects that it lacks a date, but this is simply based in a failure to look deeper into the source; if we look at the article from which the linked slide show comes from [1], we can clearly see a date printed on the top: 10/11/2012.", you are required to actually submit your own sources as complete. It is not your opponents job to complete your sources. Ever. I'm going to spend 8,000 characters telling you how to do this again. This is basic stuff.

" However, there is absolutely no reason to believe this; philosophy is grouped with 'religious studies' simply because they often deal with similar subjects (e.g. morality, the nature of reality, etc.). Both of Pro's objections fail. Forbes can safely be considered an objective, reliable source.", That was just proven false.

"Pro does not contest my argument that science as a general field provides an enormous amount of occupational versatility to the point that *even* if Pro's claims hold true (which they don't), studying science would *still* allow for more versatility than studying philosophy.", it's still unsupported. I am going to make zero effort to prove your points. Zero. Let me make that clear right now. So as it's your claim you need to show that Science degrees are versatile between fields and that there are more fields in Science than Philosophy. I would drop it personally, you will likely not succeed in that, it's a difficult claim to back but it's yours, period. We are not going to do "Silence is Concession".

"My rebuttal is *not* based on any alleged claim of philosophy courses increasing physiological/genetic intelligence.", "However, I believe that my opponent is confusing cause and effect, here; this correlation would only show that philosophy has significant value to students if majoring in philosophy was *causing* that high intelligence.", but you completely did base it off of that. Also, that's an outright lie, the word "Intelligence" doesn't appear at all in my first argument. It's not there. You are actually the first person to use the word (and bring up the subject). I have no idea how you are aware how I used a word I never used. To prove it just press F3 and search the word "Intelligence". So your rebuttal is based on nothing tangible. I have no idea how to handle this because I've never come across this before!

First, it's still a strawman because that was not your original claim, you're shifting goalposts, and second you cried bias but then you got a website that's distinctly selling something? Not only this but the term "Critical Thinking" only comes up when it's the company and intelligence is never in a sentence with critical thinking. Upon reading it there is no evidence backing anything about an explanation of how it works or how the two connect innately. It's selling a product, clearly, and it is not a research paper.

C is still unsupported. You need to do something more than say "It does!" The claim is simple "Science exercises the critical thinking and reasoning skills as much as Philosophy", but it's your claim, so I don't have to try and prove it. And I won't.

"However, I am not really sure how to substantiate my claim any further... there is a clear logical gap between descriptions of the competitiveness within scholarly philosophy circles (what he provided) and the practical usages of philosophy (what he was trying to prove).", I don't know if you understand this but you actually have to show how that works. There is no such thing as a "Clear" outlook. You need evidence for everything. There isn't and wasn't sufficient explanation, you just keep making the claim, hoping it will stick.

" It is PRO's job to bridge this gap.", incorrect. Burden of Proof for your claims rests on you. When you say "Nu uh!" that's not enough. I cannot respond to "Nu uh!" with anything more than "Yah huh!" and we're not doing that. It is your job to show that Science is either equivalent or greater in value, that's the burden you chose to take on, and you're not doing it!

"Philosophy is not just the art of sitting in a circle and making things up. Philosophy is Life. Philosophy is what grants many meanings to many things, from Ethics to Law, from Medicine to Business Magnate, these are the cores of the system that cannot be ignored. A person who does not have a backing in philosophy is simply worse off; they do not do as well on tests, they limit themselves to a very specific and ever shrinking instead of ever expanding discipline, and they can only take one route when they take on a science, for instance biological sciences will not yield aerodynamic results however philosophy can take you down many, many roads as cited above.", did you just claim that the summary of the citations and arguments is actually "baseless"?

By the way your parody (if you used the same source method and argumentation) would be accurate as a summary. Out of words correcting you again. Great.
UchihaMadara

Con

Pro unfortunately has chosen to continue with his strategy from last round.
Again, all I need to do is show that each accusation is false.

1. Versatility

a. Pro misconstrues my argument. I am NOT dismissing his source simply because it is a university philosophy department's homepage. That potential motive for exaggeration is *a* reason, but there are other more important reasons that I have already pointed out, such as that the home page itself lacks any substantial evidence behind its assertions (only a list of links to mediocre sources at the bottom of the page), and that reputable sources with no biases towards or against the field of philosophy contain information which contradicts the home page's claims. All of those observations *together* lead us to the conclusion that Pro's source is biased. Thus, there is sufficient reason to disbelieve that a philosophy degree actually opens up all the fields that Pro's source claims it does.

b. Pro continues to pursue his point that Forbes was only talking about theology when it listed philosophy, but his only support for that assertion is that there are other sources where philosophy and religious studies are listed together... this STILL doesn't prove that ANY of those sources were talking about theology... Pro's argument is completely baseless. There is no reason to believe that they are talking about something other than philosophy when they specifically write 'philosophy'. I have already provided a reasonable explanation for why philosophy and religious studies are often listed together.

c. Pro claims that because I have not put up a link to support my argument about the great number of specialties encompassed by the field of general science, he can safely ignore it. This is absurd; not only is what I pointed out a matter of common knowledge, but I also provided several examples of specialty fields commonly accepted as 'scientific' to support my point. Pro has no valid grounds for rejecting my argument, here. It should be treated as a concession on his part.

2. Applicability

a. Pro is playing semantics. It is true that I was the first one to use the term intelligence; however, there are multiple definitions of intelligence. Pro is the one who automatically assumed that by intelligence, I meant physiological/genetic intelligence, when I was indeed referring to the same thing he was (critical thinking capability). Pro has now accused me of both straw-manning and shifting goal posts, but ironically, it is he who is straw-manning my argument in order to accuse me of those fallacies... My rebuttal still holds: we cannot accept a correlation between high intelligence and philosophy majors as evidence that studying philosophy causes high intelligence.

b. Pro dismisses my source (regarding IQ being an indicator of critical thinking skill) as being biased using similar logic to that which I used in 1a. Firstly, we must note that Pro provides no competing source disproving my claim, as I did, so he is essentially committing the exact same fallacy that he falsely accused me of: claiming bias based on nothing more than the motive for exaggeration. Secondly, even if we accept his critique of IQ, it wouldn't refute my rebuttal, here, because Physics majors also score higher than Philosophy majors on other standardized tests like the SAT. Thus, we can still use Pro's fallacious argument against him to show that even by his own logic, studying Physics (a science) increases your intelligence more than studying philosophy.

c. Pro claims that since I have not sourced my argument that studying science also exercises critical thinking skills, he can safely ignore it. Again, what I pointed out is a matter of common knowledge, and I even provided examples of common activities within a science curriculum which actively engage our cognitive faculties. Also, I would like to point out that Pro's source behind his own claim that philosophy increases reasoning skills is just a non-reputable online article... Pro has no valid reason for dismissing this argument; his doing so should be treated as another concession.

3. Practicality

a. Flabbergasted again. There is no logical reason why we should connect the academic rigor of studying philosophy with philosophy as a field having practical value, and Pro has *still* not provided any reason for us to do so, instead going off on some non-applicable tangent about BOP. Thus, whatever point he was trying to make is rejected. Simple, really.

b. I concede this point. It seems that due to Pro's poor formatting, I was unable to distinguish his closing statement from his third contention. However, this clarification actually just has even *more* harmful implications for Pro's case because it means that his *only* support for his third contention is the 'academic rigor' point, which has been rejected due to the complete lack of logical connection between it and the topic of the contention.

c. Pro doesn't even address my point about science's immense practical outputs. Should be treated as a concession.

===========================

In conclusion, Pro has provided pretty much zero substantive argumentation, failing to properly defend his original arguments or give actual rebuttals to my arguments for science's superiority. Instead he has wasted all his space with rants about how dumb I am (and then proceeding the blame the lack of space on me).
None of Pro's accusations regarding my supposed logical fallacies hold up, and all three of my arguments against the resolution (occupational versatility, real world applicability, practical output) have virtually been conceded .
The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
1. You didn't substantiate your own claim. At least there is more research done for me to substantiate mine. The correlation is significant enough to warrant exploration.

3. The Principle of Charity is a debate tool. I don't even know what the heck you're trying to say in the rest of this paragraph.

As for your last paragraph: I did not claim that one could eat a better breakfast and therefore get a better score. This is a strawman. What I said is that students who do eat breakfast do better one tests. You attempted to argue that philosophy students have higher scores. Since this is a debate regarding "greater value" the fact that the things I mentioned also leads to higher tests scores serves to weaken your point. High scores aren't a necessary consequence of majoring in philosophy, and since other sufficient conditions exist for such, you would need to offer some reason as to why the value of philosophy is increased due to philosophy students having higher scores. Let alone the fact that this is a Fallacy know as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. You have assumed that because a correlation exists between majoring in philosophy and doing well on standardized tests that majoring in philosophy causes such, with no reason given to believe this to be the case.

As UchihaMadara said, just take the advice and do better next time. You are trying to argue against me when I am telling you what you needed to do to win. Barring the fact that your arguments are extremely weak anyway, you would do well to take heed. I am giving you advice that was given to me by some of the best debaters on this site.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
1. You would actually have to substantiate your secondaries (breakfast, study strategy, test strategy, sleep, etc.) since the sample size is massive (often 1,000+). I know for a fact I couldn't substantiate anything you posed as "factors".

3. I've no "principle of charity". Ambiguity is actually a fallacy in itself and amorphous arguments are a waste of time. Actually you just made one. It has a certain "flexibility" that grants it the poorest of values because instead of being concrete, scalable, and traceable it's reliant on common knowledge. How does one prove that philosophy students eat breakfast, study and test better through any given strategy, and sleep better? Then how does one prove this for the participants of the actual test in the period? Arguments like that have periodicity which basically means that a general mean won't work and that it's only effective for the effected period of the effected test.

You could go at least 4 ways in "defense" too:

1. Common Knowledge arguments
2. Commonality arguments
3. General Mean arguments
4. Derivative arguments

Flexibility is good but I'll never be a fan of or use ambiguity to my advantage. That is still in my opinion underhanded. It's the same as leaving one's assumptions "open to attack"; a lack of clarity only complicates things. For instance your #1 has a number of open and unsupported or irrelevant statements. Am I to say that philosophy students inherently eat better breakfasts and just sleep better? Can I assert outside of the major/minor itself that there's some "definitive element" or "correlation"? I would think not. Either that or mathematics majors eat REALLY good breakfasts for the quantitative portion of the GRE since they dominate it.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
"Homosexual Acts are Immoral"?
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
@UchihaMadara, offer me a topic, and I'll gladly debate you.

@blackkid,

1. That is not enough. Simply majoring in philosophy doesn't make a higher score more likely, several other things must be in place as well. For example, you must be prepared for such. The various test taking strategies, such as being relaxed, sleeping well the night before, having a decent breakfast, as well as studying and preparing for standardized tests can all lead up to having a higher score. You have to look for something a little stronger than what you are offering. For example, formal logic is often taught to philosophy majors, either due to course work or due to teacher recommendation. Formal logic enhances one's ability to think through an awareness of invalid and valid reasoning. When one is capable of making a valid formal argument consistently, it becomes easier to discern good and bad arguments, which in turn makes it harder to be swindled by those who are dishonest.
2. addressed above.
3. UH did this just fine to your statements, and I have also done it. It is possible. The principle of charity encourages you to believe your opponent is offering the best argument possible. Ambiguous statements still require reasons, as they tend to be unsubstantiated claims. If you can attack the assumptions, you will garner the vote.

As for your recent comment: when you make an unsubstantiated claim (which is mainly one with no support) you leave your assumptions open to attack. For example, if I claim we know God exists because the Big Bang occurred, you could ask me about the various Multiverse theories that are available. Since I have either A) assumed the theories false or B) failed to offer a reason to not believe them, one can easily attack these assumptions and gain the upper hand.
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
That seems underhanded to be honest. Rather than forcing your opponent to substantiate their claims you just beat them to death with their own nonsense? That's doable, but it's not a "superior" tactic in my opinion; it's dishonest.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
lol blackkid, just accept pfalcon's advice and move on...
he is clearly the better debater. that example rebuttal he posted was brilliant and would indeed have given me a tough time. in fact, now i kinda wanna debate him...
Posted by blackkid 2 years ago
blackkid
1. "Better" was encompassed by expressing the increase in score relative to the GRE and other graduate tests.
2. It's incorporated in #1. Your ability to do more with knowing how to reason well such as performing better on standardized "extremely difficult" or high-end tests which incorporates better thinking relating to high end tasks. This was reiterated in the article relating to the letter where philosophy majors would challenge an editorial and then tell them to post it anyway. They were able to ascertain the meaning and effectively, relevantly challenge it.
3. You cannot pose a rebuttal to an ambiguous statement.

As for support it didn't get past the first round, sadly.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
(cont) and we will see how much you've learned. Being able to make a positive case for your position will give you a deal of leverage in further debates.

Feel free to challenge me on any topic. If I find it reasonable, I will accept. We can share Burden of Proof, if you so choose.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
(continued from previous comment) that "John claims the Earth is flat! But he gets F's on every test, so the Earth can't be flat". While my conclusion is true, given current evidence, my reasoning is fallacious. Who cares what grades John makes in class? That has no bearing on his claim, unless, of course, John regularly lies or tries to fool people, in which case, one has reasons to not believe his claims.

In addressing arguments, you must find the key proposition, and attack. Similar to a house of cards. There is that one card (statement) upon which the house (argument) rests. One it is gone, the house will fall.

For example, U. H. claims "In reality, philosophy has very limited versatility, as shown by the fact that philosophy majors have an above-average unemployment rate", this actually is a fallacy. It is called a red herring. Look it up. What does unemployment of a group of people have to do with the versatility of the subject matter of their college education? It is possible to be educated in philosophy, but not major in it. As such, the unemployment rate is irrelevant to the versatility of philosophy. One can be unemployed in science as well. Does that then mean that science is not versatile? UH's argument is self-destructive. If it is true that unemployment decreases the versatility of education in a field, then on pain of inconsistency, science must be included in this. You need to learn to do this yourself. You could have then countered by mentioning the fact that philosophy can be coupled with absolutely any major. For example, a cosmologist will sometimes have not a ethical principles in his/her personal life. Being able to offer a clear argument to his family, for example, as to why spanking shouldn't occur will be quite a useful skill. Think on these things in your next debate. I would enjoy being your opponent, provided you take BoP. We can make it a no-vote debate, and you can offer your arguments (cont)
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
@Blackkid, you would have been much better off had you offered specific reasons to believe that Philosophy is versatile, universally applicable, and practical. While CON didn't offer many reasons either, I think you would have had a stronger case had you done so.

For instance, you suggest that Philosophy helps you think better. You should have:
1) examined the term "better", so as to give a decent defense of your statements.
2) offered a reason to believe this increases the value of Philosophy
3) provided a rebuttal to CON's claim that learning "how" to think is unimportant when you don't have a "what" to think about.

You did not have enough support for any of your claims. One sentence is not enough. When you suggest that Philosophy is versatile, for example, you are repeating yourself when you say it "opens gates to many fields". If it is versatile, this can be assumed to be true, as "versatile" means "Able to adapt or be adapted to many different functions or activities", per oxforddictionaries. You needed to make a case for why this is not true of science, and why it increases the value of philosophy. For example, philosophy provides a much wider range of topics wherein one can practice their critical thinking. Science is not exempt from this. Ethical, metaphysical, and ontological discussion can, and do, take place within the scientific community. However, one cannot take the scientific method into philosophy without changing it's very nature.

The reason I am not voting is that I find this to be a learning experience for you. You're new. So, I'll offer you pointers, and hopefully see you take heed of my advice, and apply it elsewhere.

As U.H. mentions, when you rebut your opponent, you need to do more than create a logical fallacy. While I found many of the things you said to be true, a fallacy doesn't make the conclusion false. "Fallacy" by definition is an error in reasoning. I could easily say (continue)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
blackkidUchihaMadaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro tries attacking con's every argument with an accusation of fallacy. His strategy falls short.
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 2 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
blackkidUchihaMadaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think pro would've been better off conceding after the 3rd round. His arguments pretty much fell apart. Crying "logical fallacy" to every con argument works if a logical fallacy has been actually committed. However, in all fairness, it is my personal opinion that con did not resort to the usage of any logical fallacies. In fact, it was pro who made an attempt to induce a lot of technical jargon in this debate. That is the hallmark of a person who has nothing meaningful left to contribute. In fact, I'm being lenient declaring this to be a 0-3 win for con. It was a rout. 0-7 would have been a lot more appropriate, but well, I don't want to be accused by pro of not following the logical voting format.