[paidleaf]

I had a huge argument with my philosophy professor about this. Our class was discussing the distinguishing characteristics between humans and animals. Someone brought up humans commit suicide while animals don't. The professor claimed that was false and brought up lemmings as evidence. I chimed in that lemming suicides were most likely myth and even if it was real, we shouldn't accept the idea of lemming suicides until we have definitive proof. He claimed lemming suicides were established fact and that if I or anyone rejected the idea in our papers on the topic, we'd be penalized for positing a factually incorrect statement. A bit of back and forth later, he said he was the ultimate authority on the topic and ended the discussion.

Naturally, in my paper, I wrote that lemming suicides were likely myth ( with sources ) and naturally I got penalized.

I still remember it years later and whenever the topic of lemming suicides come up, I make it my business to correct people. Years from now, on my death bed, my last words will be "lemming suicide is a myth".

[chrisseaton]

But lots of animals commit suicide. You don't need to talk about lemmings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autothysis

And your discussion sounds with your professor sounds really stupid - he literally claimed to be the ultimate authority on lemmings? An academic with a chair said that? Sounds so unlikely I'm not sure I believe you.

[nitrogen]

An academic with a chair said that? Sounds so unlikely I'm not sure I believe you.

Are you now claiming to be the ultimate authority on academics and their interactions with 'paidleaf?

[chrisseaton]

> Are you now claiming to be the ultimate authority on academics and their interactions with 'paidleaf?

No?

I said 'I'm not sure I believe you' - that only makes a statement about what I believe about this interaction. It doesn't claim anything about ultimate authority at all.

[paidleaf]

> But lots of animals commit suicide. You don't need to talk about lemmings.

We have to talk about lemmings when we are talking about conscious human-like suicide because lemmings are the only animals that purportedly had conscious intentional suicides like human being. After all, the philosophical debate was "the difference between humans and animals". I actually brought up honey bees committing suicide ( once they sting, they die ). But the professor rejected it ( rightly so ) because it wasn't conscious and intentional suicide. For example, a parent storming a burning building to save their child and dying in the process isn't suicide in the human sense. A female octopus giving birth and dying isn't suicide.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/30/octopus-c...

A soldier going to war and dying isn't suicide. A mother bison trying to save her calf from predators and dying in the process isn't suicide. There is a difference between sacrifice and intentional conscious suicide where no one benefits.

> And your discussion sounds with your professor sounds really stupid

It wasn't. It was one of my favorite classes in college and hence why I decided to double major in philosophy. It was the first time I can say I really thought about something. If the class was "really stupid" it wouldn't have left such an indelible mark on me.

> he literally claimed to be the ultimate authority on lemmings?

Yes. He believed it was a fact just like the earth was a sphere is a fact. And ultimately, he is the one grading the term paper and he is the ultimate authority. Do you really expect a professor to back down on things he believe to be facts?

> An academic with a chair said that?

Yes. What's so surprising about that? Do you know what an academic with a chair is? An expert. Someone with authority.

> Sounds so unlikely I'm not sure I believe you.

Are you an "associate professor" by any chance? What is so unbelievable about it? Why are you so defensive?

[jordigh]

I must enlighten the masses!

https://jordi.platinum.edu.pl/piccies/enlighten-them.jpg

[alehul]

As someone who briefly concentrated in Philosophy, your professor sounds awfully idiotic. Not even for having a wrong perspective whatsoever, but to be teaching a class about reasoning and simultaneously claim the role of god, where all reasoning must lead back to his conclusions.

[BrandoElFollito]

The fact that a philosopher claims to be an academic reference regarding hard science is sad.

It is already difficult for philosophy to avoid being grouped with dance, music and volleyball - academically speaking, and then someone makes it even more difficult by being silly.

Disclamer: as a physicist I classify philosophy together with the subjects mentioned earlier and I play volleyball a lot.

[mettamage]

My takeaway from oppressive teachers is different. I learned that if you cannot win the fight or war against them, then don't start a fight or war. Oppressive teachers remind me that there is a survival element, for students, to the academic life and that the grading scheme is most likely biased with at least some subjectivity.

Oppressive teachers show me a wonderful thing: how complex the real world is as opposed to ideals. I also dislike them with a passion.

[mlrtime]

Somewhere out there, that professor finally read evidence that there is no lemming suicides and now regrets everyday for penalizing you. At least that is how it is playing out in my head.

[dekhn]

Never argue with philosophy professors using scientific grade evidence. As you said, they consider themselves the authority and will brook no dissent.

[plink]

School's name and professor's name please, just so your comment has evidence. ;)

[darepublic]

keep fighting the good fight