Clifford Insufficient Evidence
What I'm here to discuss is some of the flaws in Clifford's principal in The Ethics of Belief. Clifford argues that it is always wrong to believe on insufficient evidence. He brings up a couple of premises. Premise 1 is that believing anything on insufficient evidence is always harmful to others. Premise 2 is that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence. With the example of a shipowner, the shipowner believed strongly in his ship without sufficient evidence that it was ready for a voyage. However, because the ship sank and caused the death of the men on the ship he was in the wrong for believing in the soundness of the ship without enough evidence to support it. His decision harmed other men and thus supports
…show more content…
the premise that believing on insufficient evidence is harmful to others. This example only shows that it sometimes can cause harm to others and doesn't prove that it always causes harm. Clifford gives his reasons for supporting premise 1 by saying that believing on insufficient evidence causes false beliefs which may cause harm, causes the believer to be more credulous, and causes the people around the credulous believer to be more ready to deceive.
I agree for the most part of Clifford's argument.
I do believe that in most cases it is wrong to believe on something without gathering enough information and evidence on the subject matter. For example, if someone was murdered and the police arrested someone who was at the scene of the crime, it would be wrong to accuse him and believing this person committed the crime without investigating and looking for evidence that indicates he was the culprit. So, I agree with Clifford based on this example. However, it's not always the case where it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence because sometimes you can't find evidence to support either side. We can't always use sufficient logic and evidence to decide an issue even though we may still believe in one thing or the other. For example, if a person was offered to be on board on a mission to explore space in search for a new colony, there is insufficient evidence to decide whether to go or not on this mission. It is high stakes, unique and irreversible making you unable to decide on any evidence even though you must choose to go or not to go. The decision to go or not only effects the person making the decision and does not harm another person. This contradicts Clifford's premise that believing on insufficient evidence is always harmful to
others.
In the case of religion, we have people who believe in religion and people who don't. Let's say for the sake of this argument that there is a common religion for everyone and those who believe in this religion believes in a singular God. We don't have enough evidence to justify either believing or not believing there is a God. People argue there isn't a God by saying that if God is benevolent then why would he allow natural disasters and evil to exist. Others will argue on the contrary because of writings like the bible that tells us there is a God. There isn't enough evidence to support that there is or that there isn't a God thus we believe in either side without sufficient evidence. One could argue against this by saying that we don't have to choose between believing and not believing and hold no views for one way or the one. Yes, one can argue this point and say they don't have sufficient evidence to choose between believing and not believing in God. But at the same time, one can have sufficient evidence in a situation and just decides not to choose one view over the other. I believe that instead of saying it is always wrong to believe upon insufficient evidence, we should say that in most cases it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence with some exceptional situations as the exceptions. No sufficient evidence for either way is considered an exceptional situation. In the case previously mentioned on religion, there is no sufficient evidence pointing to either side and thus making it one of those exceptional cases. Believing that there's a God or not does not cause harm to other people. Another example of an exceptional situation is when the situation presented is unique and high stakes. In a unique situation you would not have enough sufficient evidence to decide on the issue due to it being a once in a lifetime situation. So, one must choose option or side over the other regardless of the sufficiency of evidence. It is not wrong in those instances to believe upon insufficient logic or evidence. It is illogical to believe in everything without sufficient evidence but there is a line of exceptions that must be acknowledged to show that it is not always wrong. It is our duty to gather sufficient evidence, but when there's no sufficient evidence then it is okay to believe upon insufficient evidence.
the premise that believing on insufficient evidence is harmful to others. This example only shows that it sometimes can cause harm to others and doesn't prove that it always causes harm. Clifford gives his reasons for supporting premise 1 by saying that believing on insufficient evidence causes false beliefs which may cause harm, causes the believer to be more credulous, and causes the people around the credulous believer to be more ready to deceive.
I agree for the most part of Clifford's argument.
I do believe that in most cases it is wrong to believe on something without gathering enough information and evidence on the subject matter. For example, if someone was murdered and the police arrested someone who was at the scene of the crime, it would be wrong to accuse him and believing this person committed the crime without investigating and looking for evidence that indicates he was the culprit. So, I agree with Clifford based on this example. However, it's not always the case where it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence because sometimes you can't find evidence to support either side. We can't always use sufficient logic and evidence to decide an issue even though we may still believe in one thing or the other. For example, if a person was offered to be on board on a mission to explore space in search for a new colony, there is insufficient evidence to decide whether to go or not on this mission. It is high stakes, unique and irreversible making you unable to decide on any evidence even though you must choose to go or not to go. The decision to go or not only effects the person making the decision and does not harm another person. This contradicts Clifford's premise that believing on insufficient evidence is always harmful to
others.
In the case of religion, we have people who believe in religion and people who don't. Let's say for the sake of this argument that there is a common religion for everyone and those who believe in this religion believes in a singular God. We don't have enough evidence to justify either believing or not believing there is a God. People argue there isn't a God by saying that if God is benevolent then why would he allow natural disasters and evil to exist. Others will argue on the contrary because of writings like the bible that tells us there is a God. There isn't enough evidence to support that there is or that there isn't a God thus we believe in either side without sufficient evidence. One could argue against this by saying that we don't have to choose between believing and not believing and hold no views for one way or the one. Yes, one can argue this point and say they don't have sufficient evidence to choose between believing and not believing in God. But at the same time, one can have sufficient evidence in a situation and just decides not to choose one view over the other. I believe that instead of saying it is always wrong to believe upon insufficient evidence, we should say that in most cases it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence with some exceptional situations as the exceptions. No sufficient evidence for either way is considered an exceptional situation. In the case previously mentioned on religion, there is no sufficient evidence pointing to either side and thus making it one of those exceptional cases. Believing that there's a God or not does not cause harm to other people. Another example of an exceptional situation is when the situation presented is unique and high stakes. In a unique situation you would not have enough sufficient evidence to decide on the issue due to it being a once in a lifetime situation. So, one must choose option or side over the other regardless of the sufficiency of evidence. It is not wrong in those instances to believe upon insufficient logic or evidence. It is illogical to believe in everything without sufficient evidence but there is a line of exceptions that must be acknowledged to show that it is not always wrong. It is our duty to gather sufficient evidence, but when there's no sufficient evidence then it is okay to believe upon insufficient evidence.