Anti-Climacus

CONTRA DAVID: It will shock you, no doubt, but I agree with your entire post. I took, for my QR requirement, an intro-level physics class (can't remember the course number off the top of my head). For my science distribution (and there was one) I took the aforementioned class in physics and one in astronomy (I wasn't tearing it up, comparatively, but I wasn't taking "issues in biology," or whatever the blow-off intro level ones are). I'm also doing a heavy amount of math in my Political Dynamics class, and I did a fair amount of work with logic in Intro to Symbolic Logic and the intro Linguistics course I took freshman year (to say nothing of the necessity of comprehending argumentative logic if you're a philosophy major).

With the understanding that I have (I think) a reasonable amount of background in science-related issues (or at least enough to allow me to explain how everything in the Museum works, which should be enough), I feel free to make the following statement:

Anyone who proudly proclaims their ignorance on any specific subject proclaims even more loudly their ignorance on everything in general.

But, since I can't get away without arguing a little bit, I'll make this point: if you want to take a Philosophy class, you do not have to take the same class as a philosophy major. To use the most obvious example, you can take Phil 232: The Problems of Philosophy (taught by the Mr. Marquis clone himself, Louis Loeb), which is not
But, since I don't want to give short shrift to an argument I agree with, I'll say that David's point survives this objection. The educational system at the university is hopelessly out fo whack, and I'd gladly suffer my way through math and physics in return for, say, comprehensive education on the classics and English literature (Pope, Shakespeare, Milton et al). We should start a petition!