I'm confused. A classmate cried because (I assume she) couldn't prove she was going to die?

Just another step towards the coming implosion of the Education Bubble. Over-priced, rent-seeking colleges aren't interested in educating, just in taking as much "free federal money" as they can. . .

Never conflate education with a degree. One is not proof of the other.

This campus is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

What do you mean, "biblical"?

What he means is Old Testament, Mr. President, real wrath of God type stuff.

Exactly.

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

The dead rising from the grave!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Maybe the Yale student was just thinking: "Oh, this course will be all fun and games with easy questions like this; I won't even have to prove my case here, because Mark Twain already said it, therefore no one can argue against it." (As it happens, though, it was Christopher Bullock, in his 1716 "Cobbler of Preston," who said: "'Tis impossible to be sure of anything but death and taxes!" Plus Edward Ward in 1724.)

One could also say the meltdown was the natural outcome of the removal of the old rule that said "Children should be seen and not heard."

The idea of the old rule, of course, was that it was not polite for kids to interrupt adult conversations, and if adults thought you were well informed enough on a subject to have something worth saying, they would ASK you for your opinion. Adults have every right not to talk to kids about childish things that bore the adults to death - or not to listen to uninformed views without asking "how do you know that?" At the same time, though, kids have a real need for company AND conversation, so if there are no young playmates available for days on end, adults should have more sympathy for that.

But again, now that that rule has been removed, too many kids are growing up with the idea that they shouldn't have to keep quiet on any subject just because they don't REALLY know much about it - that keeping quiet is for those kids with no self-respect. Not true.

From Aesop:

At a great gathering of all the beasts the monkey got up to entertain his friends by doing a dance. So nimble were his feet and so amusing his gestures that all the animals roared with laughter. Even the lion, the king of beasts, forgot his royal dignity and rolled on the ground with glee.

Only the camel seemed bored by the monkey's performance. "I don't see anything so funny in that exhibition," she sniffed. "As a matter of fact, it seems very crude and amateurish to me."

"All right, then," cried all the animals, "suppose you show us what you can do!"

Realizing what she had let herself in for, the camel shambled into the circle, and in no time at all had made herself utterly ridiculous by her awkward and stumbling performance. All the beasts booed her and set upon her with clubs and claws and drove her out into the desert.

Application: Stretch your arm no further than your sleeve will reach.

The professor had challenged us to name a proposition that is entirely certain, and a classmate ventured the certainty that we all will die, because everyone had died in the past. Pushing back, he said, "But how do you know?"

This kind of thing is exactly why I lasted less than a month in Philosophy 101.

Seems not too complex to me... we can say for certain that no one who was born earlier than about 120 years ago was immortal, because if they were, they'd be alive today. So that leaves people who were born more recently than that. We know that a percentage of those people were not immortal, because they're dead.

That leave people who are alive today. We can't say for sure that no one alive today is immortal. But we can say, based on what we know of genetics, plus the fact that immortality has never been observed in any other Earthly species, that the odds of immortality spontaneously having appeared among the human race within the last century is within epsilon of zero. Which means we can disregard it.

I'm afraid you failed Cousin Dave. All that requires outside observation. How do you know anyone existed before 120 years ago? How do you know that evidence is not fabricated? How do you know they aren't living today and that this evidence isn't fabricated?

It comes down to I think therefor I am. I don't know who or what I am. But because there is sensation a thing must be doing the sensation or the simulation of the sensation. Even if you are a figment of someone else's imagination you exist as that figment.

Now that certitude on anything other than personal existence is eliminated we can get on to more important questions. Like how important is it to be 100% certain? As you say, when you are within an epsilon of zero who cares?

There used to be a subject called approximately "Logic and Reasoning". It taught the difference between conclusion, inference, and correlation. This was too dangerous to the Progressive project. So, it was replaced by Philosophy, with the intent of wiping young minds clean.

Philosophy teaches that you can't really know anything. The Sun might not rise tomorrow, and you should not be surprised if you are a Progressive sophisticate. All knowledge is a social construct, a group agreement about what is correct. It is all tribal. Choose your leader and you choose your truth.

If we can all be brought into agreement about official truth, then that offical truth becomes possible, even inevitable. This is the Seance theory of reality. We can create the future by all joining hands, if everyone truly believes. The failure to do this so far is due to some nasty non-believers, who will be eliminated. Utopia will appear.

"How do you know that evidence is not fabricated? "

I know Ben was being sarcastic to make a point, and I appreciate the point he made. But just for funsies, let's take that statement at face value for a moment. No, I do not know for sure that all of the evidence has all been fabricated. But there's two widely taught philsophical perspectives that really support that as a general statement of existence. They are:

(1) Existence is a fantasy; everything that I observe (or think I observe) exists only in my mind. Well, if that's true, then I can believe anything I want, so I choose to believe in an objective reality and the existence of an actual history. After all, if it's all in my imagination, why not? Let's just say that believing in objective reality amuses me. And if you disagree, well, since you're just a figment of my imagination, I can imagine you out of existence. So there.

(2) Some higher power, put all of that evidence there to fool us into believing in a past that doesn't actually exists. This is the creationists' argument, but there are variations of it on the left too. The problem is, if that's true, then how do you know how far back the "real" past actually goes? What if the universe was created... just now? And you were created, just now, with memories pre-loaded into your brain of reading the previous thread, that you never actually did? Again, it degenerates into sophistry, in which case I can believe whatever I want, since it doesn't make any difference.

It's like the argument against nihilism: By nihilism's own principles, the statement "nihilism sucks" is not only true, but axiomatic. Who wants to live with a philosophy that sucks? That's no fun.

I wasn't being sarcastic Cousin Dave. That is the philosophical argument. The teacher demanded 100% certainty, which for the most part is not an option. But as you and I both recognize 100% certainty is not necessary.

As I said on a rather depressing date,
G: 'Are you afraid to die?'
B: 'No. I plan to live forever.'
G: 'Wow. How are you going to do that.'
B: 'I'm going to hope for the best and if I don't live forever I'll change my plans then.'

My answer pissed her off, but who the heck brings up death on a first date?

As for who wants to live with a philosophy that sucks? Apparently the Germans. It's still rather popular over there. The most common theory for why they like nihilism I've heard is German language structure. Something about how they build their sentences teaches a sense of existential dread at an early age. I don't speak German so I can't really say.

Just to be clear, you got an F Cousin Dave because you didn't answer the teacher's question. Even though the teacher's question is stupid and pointless.

"So it is only fair to warn students and their parents that higher education is not a Disney cruise."

Actually, as the participation by the administration and faculty at Mizzou demonstrates (along with other examples in the recent past), it's becoming one. Pretty soon, the required warning will not be one stating that critical thought may be required, but one stating that "An education is not a targeted outcome" and will need to be obtained by the student, if desired, through other means.

As for who wants to live with a philosophy that sucks? Apparently the Germans. It's still rather popular over there. The most common theory for why they like nihilism I've heard is German language structure. Something about how they build their sentences teaches a sense of existential dread at an early age. I don't speak German so I can't really say. ~ Posted by: Ben at November 13, 2015 5:14 AM

I read an article a while back that said scientists and linguists are postulating that the Chinese proficiency at math is driven by their language structure and that America's lagging performance is driven by an English structure that is less compatible with mathematics.

We think in language and the language in which we think influences and drives how we organize our thoughts.

While that makes sense (as does your nihilism-German link), I think a great deal of the mathematical divide is linked to the fact that as a society becomes affluent it distracts itself - the emphasis on logic and structure (important for survival) dies down in favor of an emphasis on self-realization and hedonism. A developing society, on the other hand, is closer to the jungle and can't afford to be distracted by fluff and inherently focuses on the things that will help it further its development, like mathematics.

That's the same theory why there is a correlation between sanity and latitude. For whatever reason the farther you are from the equator the lower the rate of mental health problems. The theory being it is easier to survive in warmer climates so crazy people can have more kids without destroying society there. An alternate view notices that since live is easier in warmer climates the creatures living there develop more sophisticated weapons to kill other organisms. One such weapon is crazy inducing chemicals and diseases.

"Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?"

Guess who. (Without Googling.)