A few semesters ago, a student offered the following objections to the way in which the course challenges some deeply held beliefs:

... in the course pack you said, "If you are sympathetic with dualism, then, I think, you have cause for serious concern. At least, I hope that you will agree that it is worthwhile to look at some alternatives." I am angered by the effect this statement had on me, but mostly I am angered by the effect this statement may have on others....

I replied: If the anger gets you to examine your beliefs more carefully, then that might be a good result. Part of the purpose of university education is to challenge deeply held views; if someone can get through college without having this happen regularly, s/he should demand a tuition refund.

You have NOT proven your argument in this course pack.

I replied: Of course not - this is an intro course. It rarely even tries to offer proofs.

Too many times, instead of disproving an argument, you have merely cast a negative light on it by referring to it as ridiculous, crazy, a tall order, et cetera.

I replied: Those are three different things.

I'm glad to call crazy (i.e., a sign of serious mental defect or illness) the assertion, "It's all just a dream," and "I'm the only person." After all, those assertions are crazy - they are symptoms of severe psychosis, usually some kind of schizophrenia. (By the way, at the beginning of his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes says, with enthusiasm, that he'd be crazy to make this bad inference: "my senses sometimes mislead me/therefore, my senses always mislead me.")

There are ridiculous claims made by many people on many sides of many debates - some of which are claims the course addresses (because the claims are often taken far too seriously instead of being rejected quickly, as they ought to be).

Tall orders are faced by anyone who addresses any difficult issues, and philosophy consists entirely in dealing with the most difficult and important issues. My colleagues and I face them every single day; almost all researchers in any subject do. In the course, describing something as a "tall order" or "very serious objection" etc. is always a description that's well justified by surrounding discussion.

 I understand that you are considerably more versed on the relevant literature than any of your students,

 -not always so in my experience, I replied

but you cannot assume to be the authority. Only the authority may rightly present an argument without proving it and using deceptive techniques and be believed nevertheless.

I replied:

Why should "the authority" be allowed to get away with that?!

Anyway, no deception is involved. All premises and underlying assumptions are out in the open - far more so than is usual - and it's all made available to students from the first day of classes, with appropriate notice in the syllabus. (Some students even get annoyed with the degree of clarity and explicitness that the course maintains. They find it tedious and unnecessary. Perhaps, for them, it is unnecessary. Sometimes, however, they encounter some surprises.)

There are others with your same knowledge and experience who disagree and cannot be disproved, or at least are not, so where are their beliefs in your conclusions[?]

I replied: Considerable care is taken to present a sample of responsible opposing viewpoints, and one terrific feature of web-based courses is that many more such viewpoints can be made readily available to students who care enough to explore them. ...

Very little is taken as established in the course, with the possible exceptions of Kitcher's negative evaluation of Scientific Creationism and Block's refutation of behaviorism.

Can we not discuss philosophy without the opinions of anyone who is present?

I replied: No, of course not. This is not an idle exercise in conceptual manipulation. It concerns deadly serious matters that are informed by deeply held principles that motivate human action. If students have not already been very strongly encouraged to take responsibility for such beliefs of their own, it's high time (and it's even in my job description as that's standardly interpreted).

Finally, your conclusions, which are without proof,

I replied: -that still depends on what standard for proof one uses; no attempt is made to attain certainty as that would be irrational, and trying to settle things even nearly definitively in an intro course would be cruel to students (or practically impossible in the available time, or both).

tend to conflict with many popular religious beliefs, since dualism is a part of many of them.

I replied: Some conflict, some don't. Some popular religious beliefs have little merit; some have great merit, and some are in between. Just as there is good and bad science, there is in the same way good and bad religion: why should bad reasoning and incorrect use of evidence be any better or worse in religion than in science? (And what is the difference between religion and science anyway?!)

Even if you could prove that dualism is not true ... why on earth would you want to share this knowledge with anyone else?

 I exclaimed: This is one of the most extraordinary questions I've ever heard. Are you really asking why one would prefer truth to falsehood?!

 I would refer you to chapter 5 (Habit, Ritual, and Magic) of Konrad Lorenz's On Aggression to verify the species preserving function called ritual (i.e. religion).

I replied: At best, that would be some evidence for having some sorts of rituals, and not for holding on to whatever beliefs motivate any or all rituals. If evolutionary survival value is to be a criterion, then lots of religious rituals may need to be replaced soon (and lots might need to be kept or fine-tuned.)...

I would accept but do not ask for an apology for these inferences, but such an apology would probably have more effect on the others who have read this. Also I do not ask for a reply, though I would accept one, but I would also understand that you, in one sense, argue professionally and have me, only in an argumentative sense, at a disadvantage. Philosophy professors should evoke passion from there students! This you have done, but I am not sure at what cost.

I replied: This is a very interesting research topic - "the dangers of knowledge."

Since Plato and St. Augustine, many others have argued that certain sorts of knowledge should, under certain circumstances, be kept from some people.

There are cases in which this is obviously correct, e.g, teaching a four year old how to set fire to parents while they sleep. Many religions have also taken the position that certain sorts of knowledge would place adherents at unacceptably high levels of risk for serious mental and/or physical harm, and these positions have had a profound influence on legal systems and the practices of censorship.

This topic deserves more attention than it gets - though it does get some (e.g. from me). There are connections with issues in medicine concerning informed consent. For example, while no competent surgeon performs surgery in order to cause pain, both surgeon and patient must be well-informed about the pain that's very likely to result.

Similarly, as Socrates might have put it, education is soul surgery, and while competent educators do not set out to cause pain, it would be naive (at best) to proceed as if no pain will ever result from education. The risk is necessary for the gain. And just as there are decisions to be made in medicine about how much pain (of what sort) is justified by how much gain (of what sort), so there are analogous questions in education. But I know of no good reason to think that only risk-free education (or medicine) should ever be attempted.

Back to Dualism and Thinking Things

Back to Syllabus