-
Unsurprisingly, questioning here is the path to you being burnt at the stake. Questioning is heresy.
This is about self preservation. You want a diploma, and you’re not going to get it unless you’re willing to lie about your beliefs and say the things you’re supposed to say.
I don't think OP described anything that looks like this. I don't know that it's not happening, and I don't know that it won't (though if it hasn't started after two years, I don't know why it would start now). But right now this claim seems unjustified to me.
This feels a bit like https://xkcd.com/386/ - you're feeling the pain of knowing that incorrect thought is often rewarded above more rational beliefs. Where's the justice?
Answer: nowhere. And I can't offer great hope that it gets better - epistemic hygiene is pretty horrific even in STEM (and in the corporate world), outside of things simple enough to be resolved in the lab (or short-term market reaction). Most people are just bad at thinking. Fortunately, for much of your life, you'll be able to pick your bubbles and arrange things to mostly ignore the worst of the idiots.
And, of course, I include myself in the problem - I have plenty of blind spots and things I don't examine too closely. I don't actually know which (if any) of my preferred models and approaches actually lead to better results, and I certainly don't know that they'll work for anyone but me. I take the risk of https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Other-optimizing very seriously.
To that point, I would recommend you grant a bit more agency to your fellow students - they're allowed to choose what to take and what to leave from their classes, just like you are. Neither you nor they need permission nor agreement to believe what you believe. In fact, this may be the teacher's point: you don't have to believe THEM any more than they have to believe YOU.
Trying to fight with teachers or un-receptive students at every turn is unlikely to further any goals I can think of. It's certainly a kindness (and a benefit to you, in refinement of your beliefs) to offer additional perspective (mostly outside of class, as a rationality club or the like), but it's not your responsibility nor in your power to make them think the way you do.
Epistemology is a team sport (consilience). Adversarial strategies for such are a consent based sport.
You seem to be modeling the profession of teaching as people who are authorized to say true things saying them to students. Teaching is only weakly entangled with epistemology on a practical basis.
Notice that your teachers are actually rational, if you define rationality as success in life. Believing or at least declaring to believe something you disagree with did not hinder their ability to get the job they want and teach the classes they want. They might not do as well in a science or engineering department, but that is not where they work.
You are stuck considering two options, missing a lot more of them. You think that they are wrong AND irresponsible AND harmful, period, and you can either try to fix it or to ignore it. Ironically, that is where your own failure lies: you can't even consider that their views may actually work for them, and for other students. Art is not science, life is not logic and rationality is not a pursuit of the one truth.
Should I just shut up and focus on graduating? Or would it be unethical of me to just stand by while hundreds are taught to shut off their reasoning skills?
Consider learning empathy (understanding where others come from, why and how). Consider learning humility (accepting that your view might not be the only one worth holding). Consider learning other approaches to life, not necessarily just those based on pure logic. If you manage, you might be surprised by your own personal growth as a human.
If OP was taking a scientology class, you could say the exact same thing: the bullshit didn't hinder the teacher's ability to "succeed" (become a teacher of bullshit), therefore OP should learn empathy, etc. Presumably you wouldn't make that argument, so it's better to argue based on the qualities of the actual teaching.
Notice that your teachers are actually rational, if you define rationality as success in life. Believing or at least declaring to believe something you disagree with did not hinder their ability to get the job they want and teach the classes they want.
I note that lottery winners are rational under this definition, and also that unless you have more information than is in the post, you don't actually know what OP's teachers wanted out of life.
"I was just too exhausted from last week to explain that's not how beliefs should work."
It sounds like you know, or claim that there are objective facts beyond doubt. I am not constructionist, though I am not acting as I am absolute certain of things either.
"Most of my classmates already agree with the view that objective facts don't exist"
Maybe a solution is to act such as there _might_ be objective facts, then the constructionist talk be more durable. I mean then you can say "the constructionist might be right, although probably not."
What I wanted to tell the teacher was, "If arguments + evidence are compelling enough, you have no choice but to believe. In general, belief is not a choice." But then she'd have thrown Sartre and radical freedom at me, which would have completely missed my point.
If arguments + evidence are compelling enough, you have no choice but to believe
This is trivially true by definition of "compelling enough", and the corollary is "if she chooses not to believe, the arguments and evidence are insufficiently compelling". You have no choice but to accept THAT, right?
Your actual disagreement is whether a given set of arguments and evidence is compelling enough to believe. And this can certainly vary person to person, as you start with different priors and give different weight to evidence based on different modeling.
If it's any consolation, they probably take their own statements less literally than you do, and so it's less important that they're incoherent than you might think. They'll mostly end up acting and deciding by copying others, which works pretty well in general (see: The Secret Of Our Success).
Obviously I have much less information about your situation than you, but it seems to me that you're not in the right here, and you should be less adversarial.
E.g.:
Yesterday, a teacher was explaining the composition of a literary essay, and she claimed that an essay writer isn't required to provide justification for their claims. I asked, "Then why should I believe anything the essay says?" and she replied, "You're free to decide whether you believe it or not," and I was just too exhausted from last week to explain that's not how beliefs should work.
But an essay writer isn't required to provide justification for their claims. For example, your first sentence is a claim that you have started studying creative writing full time. Have you justified this to me (either in some unattainable absolute sense, or even just beyond reasonable doubt)? No. Should you? Also no.
When you run into an absurd claim like "An essay writer isn't required to provide justifications for their claims," you should think seriously about how it might be true. I think you're only going to be satisfied by understanding communication on a more detailed level than your professors do, but you should do that, not just reject what they say.
Back to the object level: Why should I believe you when you claim that you've started studying creative writing? I do believe you, of course - but practically speaking, why do I do that? Try to figure out an answer that generalizes by being based on the practicalities of how humans communicate and infer things about the world. And then apply that answer back to what sort of evidence an essay writer needs to provide to their audience to do their job well.
I also think you're trying to use arguments in ways that won't work. Robert Nozick makes some clever comments about arguments in best part of his book Philosophical Explanations (the introduction), something like: The goal of most philosophers seems to be to find arguments so compelling, that if a person were to disagree with the conclusion after reading the argument, their head would explode.
Longer quote:
The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief.
Though philosophy is carried on as a coercive activity, the penalty philosophers wield is, after all, rather weak. If the other person is willing to bear the label of "irrational" or "having the worse arguments," he can skip away happily maintaining his previous belief. He will be trailed, of course, by the philosopher furiously hurling philosophical imprecations: "What do you mean, you're willing to be irrational? You shouldn't be irrational because..." And although the philosopher is embarrassed by his inability to complete this sentence in a noncircular fashion - he can only produce reasons for accepting reasons - still, he is unwilling to let his adversary go.
Wouldn't it be better if philosophical arguments left the person no possible answer at all, reducing him to impotent silence? Even then, he might sit there silently, smiling, Buddhalike. Perhaps philosophers need arguments so powerful they set up reverberations in the brain: if the person refuses to accept the conclusion, he dies. How's that for a powerful argument. Yet, as with other physical threats ("your money or your life"), he can choose defiance. A "perfect" philosophical argument would leave no choice.
But the point of that chapter is that such arguments don't exist. They're an oversimplification of how arguments work. A fiction. Much like an essay, an argument with a professor is an exercise in communication, not in structuring a coercive argument.
So if nothing else, I think taking a more learning-oriented approach towards your professors might make you more likely to be able to convince them of things :)
You could try to explain your perspective:
A.
Here are some of the benefits to communication:
"Objectivity"* 'There are at least three sides to every debate - yours, mine and the truth.'
1) figuring out if we agree or disagree with each other (which may be more difficult if we don't share a language. If we use different words for the same things that's confusing).
2) You and I may both be right and wrong (because we believe more than one thing). If we both ignore each other and don't operate in good faith, we may learn nothing from each other, despite how much we can learn from each other.
B.
1) Resolution. Do disagreements between people have to last forever, or do we think it better when they do not? Even if we did disagree with someone about something for a long time, finding common ground might be good/useful.
Perhaps if we look at a lot of philosophy, we will find a lot of truth/good stuff and false/not very good stuff from the same author/school of thought. Being able to engage with different views, and see through them (peer through the lens), and also see through them (there's a smudge on these glasses/these sunglasses make it easier to see when the sun is too bright (perhaps a 'subjective or objective' phenomenon), but hard at night). Rather than tying ourselves to one rock, why not see the whole mountain?
(Explanations involving the notion "holistic" may be useful, but I haven't gone down that road.)
2) It's good to learn from more than one source. (Through one lens what everyone agrees on is probably right. Through another, widespread agreement indicates error - perhaps a result of widespread censorship or lack of engagement.)
3) The people you're talking to have strong moral opinions on some issues?
C.
Distinguish areas which have answers from areas which don't:
You and I may both like different flavors of icecream. Which is better depends on the person (or perhaps their tongue). In matters of taste...
Someone can choose to smoke if they wish. But being aware of its strong negative impacts we might hold some things to be (especially) wrong, including: forcing people to smoke.
(Morality is where things get complicated.)
*What is "objective"? What is seen through a human eye, or what is seen through a cat's eye, or what is seen through a telescope?
Objective is what is there.
Objective is what a human eye sees in an art gallery, and what a cat sees. For a particular art gallery, a human may see tapestries, while a cat may see loose threads they can pull if they climb up there.
(There are alternatives to 'objective', perhaps those you disagree with reject the notion of the 'one eye', rather than 'the true thing which is seen'. Perhaps using fancy words won't help.)
If you have a friend that shares your taste in music, and they recommend an album, it's probably going to be good. If you recommend things to each a lot, maybe these recommendations are not always good, but usually good - and sometimes they're amazing.
Perhaps when your tastes in music diverge in an area where they overlap it is interesting to learn why. (Not all things (that are interesting) are easy to put into words.)
Two years ago, I fulfilled a huge part of my dream of doing what I love and started studying creative writing full time. This program is run by a humanities department, so I knew I'd have to stomach epistemic nonsense from time to time, which most of the time I can do while reminding myself that in the end it's the diploma and the connections that I care about.
But some days are harder than others, and every time a teacher says something plainly wrong, I can't seem to decide between the cost of derailing the class and the cost of letting my classmates walk home with a wrong idea. For example, in first semester I had a long discussion with a teacher about questions in general; he didn't believe that questions are supposed to get answered, that debates are supposed to be settled. I tried my best to make the case that a long-standing debate managed in such a way that it never ends is a very poorly managed debate, but he thought that was the whole point of a debate. This was the same teacher who later said that an essay could make strong points with impeccable arguments and solid evidence and still he had the essential freedom to not believe it. Last year, a small disagreement over the interpretation of a poem got seriously derailed to the definition of life, and the teacher started saying one badly constructed modus ponens after another, and I didn't know whether to address each argument or to simply point out he didn't know how to make an argument and should never have been given a teaching position. Last week, a teacher recited the standard clichés against logical positivism and claimed that science was oblivious to the suffering of the poor; upon further probing, it turned out he was confusing positivism with optimism. I wasted half an hour trying to explain his error, to no avail. At one point he uttered the phrase "I prefer to believe..." and it was impossible to make him see how irresponsible such a statement is. Yesterday, a teacher was explaining the composition of a literary essay, and she claimed that an essay writer isn't required to provide justification for their claims. I asked, "Then why should I believe anything the essay says?" and she replied, "You're free to decide whether you believe it or not," and I was just too exhausted from last week to explain that's not how beliefs should work. She then proceeded to teach social constructionism while my insides leaked plutonium and melted down.
I knew from the beginning what I was getting into. But it's hard not to despair for the current state of education in the world. Art departments live in a separate universe and they teach generation after generation an epistemically irresponsible view of the world. Do you think it's worth my energy to try to correct my teachers? Most of my classmates already agree with the view that objective facts don't exist and rationality hinders your creativity, and every day I feel like an infiltrated agent in enemy territory. Should I just shut up and focus on graduating? Or would it be unethical of me to just stand by while hundreds are taught to shut off their reasoning skills?