forum for week of 19 September

Clifford says " it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Strong-sounding words, and they pushed William James into his very influential but slightly weird defence of believing beyond the evidence in matters of personal importance. But is that slogan of Clifford's *really* so strong? The weasel-word 'sufficient' might be a give-away. If it means 'enough to make it ok to believe', then the whole thing is in danger of turning into "it is not ok to believe when the evidence is so weak that it is not ok to believe". And this sounds a lot less drastic.

While doing the readings I kept thinking about a lot of things I learned in the History of Science. For a long while Physicists believed in Newtonian physics as the primary physics that ran the universe. However, with the advent of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and, later, with Quantum Mechanics scientists soon realized that the new evidence showed things were not as cut and dry as they believed; the world view they held was actually not entirely correct because ToR and QM complicated the Newtonian framework.

The issue is that we'll never know when we have enough evidence to support a belief. If we decided that we had enough evidence for some theory and that it was settled and done, case closed, then we'd be drawing a line arbitrarily in the sand as to what was enough evidence. Does this mean we shouldn't believe things ever? No, I think that's a step far into the opposite extreme. But, I think it's good to always have the caveat in our minds that even if we have a seemingly insurmountable amount of evidence for some belief, that we can never predict what new evidence might come up and how it might change our views. Essentially, we have to be ready to change our beliefs when new evidence becomes available because we can never know when enough is enough.

I don't believe the slogan of Clifford's is really that strong, in fact I think it is pretty obvious. You should not believe things that do not have enough evidence to be worthy of belief seems pretty basic. However once you get into what makes evidence sufficient it can get tricky. We can never truly know anything with 100% certainty, so my question for William James would be where does information become sufficient. I know he discusses various types of beliefs and why or why not we should believe them but he seems skeptical of most if not all of them. So should we just disgard them? Does tradition for example have other uses other than a formation of beliefs?

Ultimately, beliefs exist because they serve a purpose. Beliefs, especially those of moral nature, shape our values and determine how we see fit to conduct our behavior. Not only on the individual level but also in deciding how best to live among each other both within local societies and internationally. Shared beliefs are necessary when developing both domestic and foreign policy for organizing social infrastructure. Without such beliefs, we would live in a very anarchic world, which is quite simply, impractical.

We make a significant decision in choosing not to choose between beliefs based on how fragile the subjectivity of what constitutes "sufficient" evidence in order to establish "knowledge" is. As James noted in his essay, what one may consider to be insufficient grounds for belief when it comes to Christianity, many would maintain that the biblical evidence that they have is very strong and sufficient justification. Even in trying to decide upon what may classify a template for genuine knowledge, we must accept and believe in certain assumptions. For example one theory of knowledge is structured as : P must be true, S must believe that P, S must be justified in believing that P, and if it were not the case the P then S would not believe that P.

What I (believe) makes Clifford's statement seem so dramatic and perhaps even outlandish is his use of the word "always". It illustrates his point as radical and as we discussed in class (when radical terms are typically used) suggests irrational reasoning. In fact, I find it slightly ironic that he has such a strong belief about every single belief that itself cannot be objectively proven.

Indeed, humanity overall will have a challenging time trying to find true knowledge when it is as fearful as Clifford seems in being "duped". I think that the more reasonable way of going about things would be to keep a critical and questioning mind without going too far toward the opposite end of the spectrum - there should be a healthy balance between accepting certain beliefs and being autonomous in decision making regarding firstly your individual values but also what should be accepted as fact. Be conscious of the information you are being fed, be critical, be evaluative.

I think the idea "belief" is a very subjective term. Most people will think whether they should believe something before they do so. Does it suggest that once a person wants to believe something he always has some reasoning in his mind? If this is the case, when people think back the reason why they believe things at first place, there will always be some reasoning in their mind that they think it is sufficient evidence. Therefore, I think the term "sufficent evidence" is only a subjective term that people already have in their mind. The paper by Clifford only reminds people they should think before they make decisions and see whether their decisons are rational. However, people always think they are rational; without other people's value judgement, they will never know they do anything wrong.

I am contributing to this week's forum as I had joined the class late and Professor Morton instructed me to simply contribute to the next week's topic. The question of "sufficiency" always seems to present unpleasant questions in the minds of those judging as it suggests "however much we need for 'our truth' to become a reality, this now detracts from the poignancy of the statement as it conveys that we may have to dig around for evidence in order to make our beliefs valid rather than develop some clear, concrete, personal reasons based on our own experiences and perceptions. Clifford also makes no effort to reduce his scope of interest here (perhaps at the danger of being too specific and in turn, ineffective) - "always, everywhere, and for anyone" somehow seals Clifford's fate in his outlandish and seemingly desperate use of phrasing. Finally, Clifford's statement relies on the subject's consideration of apparently any evidence as cause to justify any belief, invalidating the absolute necessity for evidence based on personal consideration in determining and solidifying our beliefs.

Taken by itself, Clifford's statement "it is wrong always..." etc. is clearly pretty unremarkable, given, as you've all rightly pointed out, that we can't really define in such an abstract way what is or isn't "sufficient" evidence.

What's more important for the purposes of his essay, I think, is the reasoning which leads up to this quote. Why is it that "it is wrong always..." etc.? According to Clifford every belief, from the most significant to most insignificant, comes together to form a sort of patchwork which helps to orient ourselves in our daily lives. Many of these beliefs are socially-derived, and hence can be influenced by anyone inhabiting a given society. The following quote I think helps to clarify Clifford's views: "Every rustic," he writes, "who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race." Even the most insignificant beliefs of the most common person, according to Clifford, can have an effect on others, both through the belief itself and the maintenance of the "credulous character," and therefore, to perpetuate beliefs which "clog" the human race is in a sense to fail one's duty to humanity--the "universal duty of questioning all that we believe." 

What exactly is this "duty"? Clifford isn't clear in giving an answer, but he writes as if he means progress--both in terms of knowledge and in terms of morality. "Progress" is obviously a tricky idea in itself, so I won't try to go any deeper into it. I hope the above helps to make the quote a little clearer in its proper context. If we want to be criticizing Clifford, I think it makes more sense to look at his assertions concerning the extent to which our beliefs are socially-conditioned, and the idea of us having a "duty" towards humanity in our thinking. If these are both true, then it seems to me quite rational to believe that "it is wrong always..." etc., the slipperiness of the word "sufficient" notwithstanding.

Sorry, disregard the original post---apparently if you indent by accident it puts your writing in that weird box...

Taken by itself, Clifford's statement "it is wrong always..." etc. is clearly pretty unremarkable, given, as you've all rightly pointed out, that we can't really define in such an abstract way what is or isn't "sufficient" evidence.

What's more important for the purposes of his essay, I think, is the reasoning which leads up to this quote. Why is it that "it is wrong always..." etc.? According to Clifford every belief, from the most significant to most insignificant, comes together to form a sort of patchwork which helps to orient ourselves in our daily lives. Many of these beliefs are socially-derived, and hence can be influenced by anyone inhabiting a given society. The following quote I think helps to clarify Clifford's views: "Every rustic," he writes, "who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race." Even the most insignificant beliefs of the most common person, according to Clifford, can have an effect on others, both through the belief itself and the maintenance of the "credulous character," and therefore, to perpetuate beliefs which "clog" the human race is in a sense to fail one's duty to humanity--the "universal duty of questioning all that we believe."

What exactly is this "duty"? Clifford isn't clear in giving an answer, but he writes as if he means progress--both in terms of knowledge and in terms of morality. "Progress" is obviously a tricky idea in itself, so I won't try to go any deeper into it. I hope the above helps to make the quote a little clearer in its proper context. If we want to be criticizing Clifford, I think it makes more sense to look at his assertions concerning the extent to which our beliefs are socially-conditioned, and the idea of us having a "duty" towards humanity in our thinking. If these are both true, then it seems to me quite rational to believe that "it is wrong always..." etc., the slipperiness of the word "sufficient" notwithstanding.

I think Professor Morton is accurate in his reference to Clifford's Principle that the use of the weasel-word 'sufficient' might be a give away, for anyone to believe anything in terms of evidence. In the race to develop the atomic bomb, Brigadier General Leslie Groves had Manhattan Project responsibility. The plutonium bomb technology [synthetic fuel] was first tested. The first bomb dropped was an uranium bomb. The actual dropping of Little Boy, the first bomb dropped, on Hiroshima, was the test. A decision related to Groves beliefs. The result was only two bombs resulted in Japan's unconditional surrender. A large number of military lives were saved, through action, without evidence, the Little Boy bomb would actually work. James Milligan

Based on this thread it would seem that the general consensus is that beliefs and rationality are closely tied. I would argue that beliefs often cloud the decision-making capabilities of those in power, as well as affecting the daily choices of each person. Why do we stand firm in some of our beliefs, while understanding that certain others are probably untrue? Dieting is an example of this. There are countless methods that different individuals swear by, or believe in. How can such a situation promote rationality and clarity?

Clifford suggests that if an individuals beliefs are founded illegitimately, that is if there is a lack of good evidence, that person is subject to moral criticism. In another form, the individual has failed their duty as a rational human being by being fooled into false beliefs.

This raises a problem that can be exemplified in dieting. How are we to know who the 'experts' are? Which method actually makes one thinner and more healthy? Clifford is not suggesting that we distrust everyone, everything we are told. For him, the answer lies in social trust. If something is widely believed, it is more likely to be true. This, however, quite clearly does not provide correct beliefs every time.

Clifford leaves us with strong words to navigate through our beliefs with rationality. "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." True to his doctrine, I must ask where is his evidence for this statement? With the internet, there is now 'sufficient evidence' and 'proof' for almost every idea, belief and opinion. The best each individual can do is question where the evidence is from, and who. Beyond that each of us holds some beliefs that are false, and the best we can do is to be open to criticism and change.