Conspiracy theories are a common phenomenon that have been around for at least the past 100 years, with the core idea being that powerful individuals or groups are secretly plotting a dastardly scheme. These theories can be triggered by various factors, including personal intuition, feelings of antagonism, and superiority. However, the belief in conspiracy theories is not a mere symptom of pathology, as research links support in such theories to various psychological and non-partisan/ideological political factors.
Conspiracy theories are abundant in social and political discourse, with serious consequences for individuals, groups, and societies. Psychological scientists have developed a new research domain over the past decade, distilling four basic principles that characterize belief in conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political.
Recent events, such as the election of Donald Trump, the U.S. Capitol riot, and mass shootings inspired by conspiracy theories, have prompted psychological research on how conspiracy theories start, why they persist, who is most likely to believe them, and whether they are part of mainstream public life. Conspiracy theories can undermine governments, promote racism, ignite extremism, and even pose a threat to health and science information. Understanding the individual-level characteristics associated with conspiracy theory beliefs is vital to addressing and combating these issues.
In conclusion, conspiracy theories are a complex phenomenon that can impact various aspects of life, including individuals, groups, and societies. Understanding the individual-level characteristics associated with conspiracy theory beliefs is crucial for addressing and combating these issues.
📹 Why Do So Many People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
The internet is full of all sorts of wild claims about shadow governments, lizard people, and the shape of the earth. How can these …
📹 Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theories, & Epistemic Responsibility: Crash Course Philosophy #14
Today we explore what obligations we hold with our personal beliefs. Hank explains epistemic responsibility and the issues it …
I know I’m late to the game (by 6 years), but I find it funny and sad that Hank had to finally disable the comments section on the last 5 philosophy articles (ya know, the ones about religion)… I’ll never be around to find out what was said to force his hand, but I can’t say I’m surprised. Regardless, thank you CrashCourse for making these short, informative articles! They are great springboards for further investigations!
Isn’t James’ argument Begging the Question? He started from the idea that his belief in god is okay, then tried to reason why it’s okay. Looking at his categories, I’m left suspecting that his “momentous” category is only defined as an improvement because he felt his own source belief to be an improvement. Without that being part of the definition, I’m not sure how one would come to the conclusion that “live”, “forced” and “momentous” is what makes a belief okay, rather than simply “trivial” (with the other two category type not mattering).
I’ve been arguing in favour of Clifford’s position for years, though this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it. Foundationless beliefs are indefensible, because, not only to do inform your decisions (and thus affect the world and the people around you), but they also introduce the possibility of confirmation bias. By holding an opinion, that colours your view of new evidence, and if you hold a false opinion (which a baseless opinion may well be) then that bias is only going to force you further and further from the truth. Therefore, holding a foundationless belief is an choice to understand the world less well. By holding a belief for which you have no evidence, you are choosing to drift further and further from actual knowledge. It is wilful and persistent and growing ignorance. And it is perhaps the greatest possible human failing.
I really like this philosophy series. As much as you can easily tell where the people writing it stand on a lot of these issues, I like that they present the other options and opinions in a way that doesn’t make them sound idiotic or absolutely false. I like that they’re trying to be sort of objective, even if it doesn’t work all the time.
While I completelly agree with Clifford’s view, one could point out that 2:20 statement (“it is wrong always, and everywhere, for anyone, to belive anything upon inssuficient evidence.”) might just be a belif of his which can not obtain sufficient evidence. I mean just by the nature of statement, how do you prove the “wrongness” of something all the time and everywhere ? A valid question if one aspires to be difficult 😀
William James’ argument sounds suspiciously like Special Pleading to me – he seems to acknowledge Clifford’s take on Epistemic Responsibility, but then constructs **an argument to make his belief in a God the exception to it. **…and not a solid argument, IMO: I’ll agree that choosing to buy in or not to religious belief is a potentially monumental one, but 1) I have a beef with his live vs. dead option (he and many others can totally see holding a belief in a god to be appealing, while others don’t as much, especially when you’re assuming said god to be omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent – I for one cannot accept such a prospect); 2) the argument regarding forced vs. unforced doesn’t wash with me, either – you can choose to withhold judgement on whether to believe or not. He sets up a false dichotomy here.
I’d never heard William James’ counter argument to epistemic responsibility, but I find it really interesting. I have one question that I don’t think he answered (or at least I didn’t see it answered in the article): WHY are Live, Forced, Momentous beliefs grounds for exception to epistemic responsibility? We could just as easily argue that, because these are some of our most important and most personal beliefs, that we should DEFINITELY test them.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that, in Clifford’s time, the smallpox vaccine had a 10% fatality rate. Much better than the fatality rate during an actual outbreak, but still, you could see why it would be tempting to freeload and rely on herd immunity. Of course, as the measles comeback proves, herd immunity is a very fragile thing, with only a tiny number of people who can take advantage of it. Those spots need to be reserved for kids with conditions like leukemia, who actually are endangered by vaccines.
Define sufficient evidence for a belief. I cant reproduce every necessary science experiment up to this point. generally we cant expect everyone to do that. We are a society of specialization and as such are often forced to blindly believe what “experts” from other fields say or what sounds reasonable. Some amount of faith is necessary i guess.
The story of the ship owner got me thinking about the origin story for the name of the band Twenty One Pilots (I was obsessed with them in high school). Essentially, the lead singer, Tyler, read a play called All My Sons in which a man who sold parts to plane during one of the World Wars (don’t remember which one) received news that a batch of his parts were faulty/flawed/likely to cause harm and the man was faced with the moral crossroads of either selling the parts anyway for the financial gain, at the risk of their malfunction, or not selling them, taking the financial blunder but doing the “safe” and “right” thing. He decided to sell them anyway and they malfunctioned (surprise, surprise) and, as a result, twenty one pilots died. So there’s a fun fact about the band story (still obsessed with them, tattoo and all, #1 fav of my whole life) and come to find out it parallels a famous philosophical parable. Yeehaw.
I would like to point out that the key phrase in James’ argument would be “not sufficient evidence”. I have to disagree with you when later in the article you said that anti-vaccination can be morally justified based on the same criteria. You know better than I do that there’s ample evidence to support that vaccinations are both safe and effective, and choosing not to vaccinate your kids would be harmful to them and to society. In that way, there is solid scientific evidence which directly contradicts your belief that vaccines are dangerous. How is that not sufficient evidence? If, and this is completely hypothetical, there is insufficient evidence suggesting that vaccines are safe or dangerous, then your statement holds true and anti-vaccination sentiment is analogous to religious belief and it is morally justified according to those three criteria. But I would argue that in this case, it really would be justified. Going by Clifford’s argument about epistemic responsibility, I would be wrong to not vaccinate my kids because there is no evidence that they are harmful, but at the same time I would be wrong to vaccinate them because there isn’t any evidence that they are safe either! That in itself is contradictory.
Great article! philosophy encourages me to think about things I’d never think about and it really affected my life! I’ve always been someone to question everything but philosophy somehow puts it in order 😊 the philosophy playlist is my absoulte favorite (even though the others are not far behind!) keep up the great work!
I have to say, Hank, sexism is not a negative behavior against women, but a negative behavior against one of two sexes. I say this because these days we’re so focussed on one side of the word sexism that many people don’t even consider that there is another side, so much so in some cases that they see men as sexist in general. Ironically enough, a very pure example of sexism in action. Therefor I find it important not to treat sexism as men discriminating women alone else we become so blindly focussed on this side that we don’t even see wether we ourselves discriminatingly think all men are lesser than women. I am whining here, but it is a very important matter to heed these days.
For it to be a momentous option, wouldn’t there have to be a fairly high chance of the belief being correct? Am I justified in believing that if I go and stand in front of a NASA center I will be chosen to be an astronaut? If right, it could be momentous, but it is most likely not. If I remember correctly, there are over 4000 religions, so not only would the result require a god (not provable) it would also likely require that the right religion is believed to have an advantage. This would make it extremely unlikely that the belief would give you an advantage. I am not saying it is unjustified, just thinking in a comment box.
+CrashCourse I’m not quite sure I understand James’ argument. I get the definitions of live, forced, and momentous. After defining these, though, you just repeat his conclusion, that if it checks those boxes, it’s justified. But surely there’s some reasoning? As stated, it hardly seems like a defensible position. “Live” – It seems reasonable to me to postulate that for any belief, it’s possible to assemble social and other mental pressures such that for at least some people, it’s an option they could entertain. “Forced” – Likewise, it seems like you could do a bit of belief algebra and rephrase literally any choice as A or not A and then you’ve got to choose one. “Momentous” – This actually does restrict the discourse, but if anything, it’s going to Clifford’s point. On the one hand, this argument doesn’t justify my right to think I’ll like green apple gum, because who even cares. On the other hand, it justifies my belief that if I don’t kill my neighbors, the King will kill me and my family. I could almost see Clifford saying “well fine, you can hold unjustified beliefs, but not if they’re momentous.” I’m sure I’m missing something, but how does this argument work?
I’ve been keeping up with this series since episode 10 caught my attention. “What makes an argument cosmological,” I asked, and ever since then you have taken me–a devout monotheist–on a very fascinating roller-coaster on what it means to be a religious thinker. Of course, moderate-length-of-time listener, first-time commenter, as until now I have been humbled at how high-end the thoughts and arguments presented have been–both the ones I agree with and disagree with–and this is simply you quoting mostly people who have died hundreds of years ago! Even concepts that I thought myself familiar with, like the Problem of Evil, and the upcoming episode about Pascal’s Wager, you have (and very likely will) take it a level above and beyond my previous understanding of the concept. This episode, however, I feel that I may have something to contribute to the discussion. Repeatedly, the premise was given that religious belief must always be held without evidence–the “blind faith” described by Clifford–and is thus epistemically irresponsible. The only counter-argument given is from William James, that epistemic responsibility can somehow have exceptions, implicitly agreeing that a religious belief must inherently be without evidence. William James is clearly the weaker philosopher here, and while I cannot blame him for at least trying to level with Clifford, who was essentially calling him an inherently bad person for his beliefs, you basically demolish his premises by pointing out that, in carving out his exception, he simultaneously justifies anti-vaxxers and marginalizes agnostics.
Jame’s analysis of religious belief as Live is flawed. He axiomatically defines it as Live, but it is only so because it is a belief he held a-priori. In order to make a proper determination, he would have to evaluate whether or not it was Live at the moment he first considered whether or not to hold his religious beliefs. Since most people who hold religious beliefs (including, presumably, James) are indoctrinated as children when they lack both the analytical tools to reason about their beliefs and the agency to self-determine their beliefs, it is difficult to argue that religious faith is an epistemically responsible belief, even if you buy James’ Live, Forced, and Momentous exception argument.
Wait, so Clifford came up with a good reason not to believe things without evidence – and the best that religion has been able to do in some 200 odd years is, “I can if I want to”? That’s special pleading. It’s 100% pure natural special pleading. And yet again I find myself wondering why CC is so reluctant to point this out. I also find myself wondering why the scientific method didn’t come up. Even if it’s not formal philosophy it’s still a commonly agreed situation when it’s permissible to have an unsubstantiated belief (hypothesis) because such beliefs can improve the world – as long as you’re willing to abandon them when proven wrong.
The idea that there’s no such thing as a private belief (as beliefs are spoken about and influence others), and that you are thus morally obligated not to hold beliefs lacking evidence, reminds me of Kant’s philosophy that there’s no such thing as a private sin (e.g. laziness, wilful ignorance), as private sins not only set a bad example for others but can result in you being a disservice to them (e.g. if you have an unhealthy lifestyle, you will place a burden on public healthcare, or will not be able to serve others as well than if you were healthy). Following this line of reasoning, it would seem that any action/belief we hold can have moral consequences.
The things I don’t like about the boat analogy: – We never know everything about everything, so even if you have a perfect-condition newly built boat, you still cannot always guarantee that it will reach its intended destination safely, you cannot predict the future. – He’s taking a situation which is likely to have a bad consequence and ONLY bad consequences and using it as an analogy against religious beliefs, which often have good consequences, such as helping people turn away from alcoholism or practice tolerance, generosity, and other virtues. – There’s no hard and fast measure of how much evidence is sufficient evidence. I mean, it’s said he convinces himself the ship is still good, so he must have some reasons to trust it even though there are reasons for doubt. Everyone has to decide for his or her self what is or is not sufficient evidence.
I’m a biologist. I have a Master’s degree from an extremely highly-ranked medical university. I have worked for a total of six years–and still currently work–in labs that develop and test vaccines. I have also received vaccines not generally available to the public (for work-related reasons), even though I know those vaccines have a higher incidence of serious adverse effects. And I have even taken part in the receiving end of a vaccine clinical trial, when the safety of a investigational vaccine was tested on me. In order to get along with friends and family members who are anti-Vaxxers, I’ve done my best not to be around or initiate conversations on the subject. Well, damn, W. K. Clifford. . . . there goes my easy life . . .
Both stances are wrong, as far as I’m concerned. Arguing that you are morally sinful for holding a belief with insufficient evidence is simply not possible. The entire point of intelligence is the ability to solve unfamiliar problems with insufficient data. Human brains are pretty good at recognising patterns and so deducing the way the nature works, but it usually takes many wrong guesses at fictitious patterns before a correct one is found. Often not even that. Look at stuff like quantum physics – all we have at present are best guesses. Far as I’m concerned, the entire field’s existence is a best guess, but it seems to work up to a point. Holding a belief with insufficient evidence is how intelligence works. The more “intelligent” a creature is, the more likely it is to hold onto the correct beliefs. To refuse to act unless absolute, perfect certainty exists brings us all the way back to René Descartes – absolute certainly doesn’t exist. Sooner or later we need to accept some things to be true or else we can’t function. I don’t need to understand fluid dynamics in order to hold the belief that my car’s brakes will work when I stamp on the pedal, even though my life depends on it and it could very easily not be true some of the time. We work with what we have, or we don’t work at all. Inversely, though – arguing that a “live forced momentous” belief is OK to hold without evidence seems the most backwards to me. I’d argue completely the opposite – the less a belief matters, the more you can hold it in the absence of evidence because.
At 7:41, Hank says that a trivial option, or what seems like a trivial option won’t radically change your life. But while it may seem trivial, it could have momentous consequences. Let’s use Hank’s example. If you don’t get the french fries with your hamburger, nothing will happen and your life will go on normally. But if you do, your order takes longer to cook, you wait for it longer, and you leave shortly after when you would have left if you didn’t get the hamburger. In those extra two minutes that you’re at the restaurant, a talent agent walks up to your table and says, “You look like you have the perfect look to star in my movie.” You audition, get the role, play the part, and begin your acting career, giving you a life filled with wealth and fame, all which might not come if you got your hamburger without french fries. Options that may seem trivial can actually have momentous consequences. Thoughts?
I’m 22 and I will be taking the SAT again shortly as my scores have expired, and I am attempting to go back to school. I started perusal Crash Course as a way to catch up on some stuff before college, but I feel like I’ve learned more in these articles than I did in highschool. I’m sure that’s not the reality of it, but regardless I really appreciate this website and all the content you guys put out.
“Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only change form.” The ground beneath our feet is my evidence. And no, we know the universe’s energy isn’t eternal and infinite because it had a beginning (Big bang) and it has an end. The ONLY way the universe could have formed is if a forced outside it with equal or greater energy acted upon it.
The forced and unforced argument was actually a pretty good one. Most likely your going to be in a situation where each side has little to no evidence to support them at some point. If it’s is a forced situation where you have to believe one or the other, then you have no choice but to believe in a side with little to no evidence. Usually in these kinds of situations though, it’s best not to put much commitment into whichever belief you choose.
I think the biggest problem with James’s rebuttal, other than that it leads to allowing false beliefs that harm people, is in that last category of momentous vs trivial. These provide a bucket for options that can greatly benefit you and a bucket for options that are pretty unimpactful, but it doesn’t even consider that an option could greatly harm you (or others around you). Just because a belief could potentially make you feel happier doesn’t mean it won’t also harm people around you; and if it does more harm than good, then its benefit to you is irrelevant.
I find Cliffords assertion a very frightening one. This leads to the question of who decides what counts as evidence. What if ones beliefs DO do good, e.g. religion. It also is damaging to liberty. Liberty demands freedom of conscious, even negative, and Clifford seems to subtlely call for a societal thought police.
Here in Sweden we have had several hundred cases(mostly kids/teens) of narcolepsy caused by the swine flu vaccinen. Its scandal here with the state now needing to cover all the care for this people as they had claimed it was safe to use. So its not always safe but it can be better option in most cases but they need to be honest about the bad things that can happen.
Hi Crash Course team! I really loved this article and would love to read more about epistemic responsibility. Were there are any books that were used in researching or writing this episode that I could look up? I was also wondering if you guys ever considered making reading lists to go with your courses or individual lessons? It’s always good to cite your sources so that people can see how your train of thought in the episode was developed, and it would provide a road to further exploration if they want to learn more. Thanks!
The main problem with Clifford’s argument is what if there is no solid evidence on either side? When it comes to God, there is no evidence he exists, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, therefore there is also little evidence to prove he does not exist. But it’s also a forced choice, at least to some degree… So is either side of the belief allowed then?
It’s a crappy ship! Right?Then before you set foot on it, isn,’t it also your responsability to check its state? did you chose to trust other or was there any evidence you could find to check for yourself? Regarding science, many people are not equipped to understand it, so they chose to believe what goes along their limited view, in their mind “a friend said”,or “that research” equals a double dosis of authority, so they won’t (and usually can’t) check the facts, furthermore the conspiracy makes you feel good (i’m more intelligent than the other sheep, i see what other can’t). Is it irresponsible to believe in god? I don’t know sir, probably it is, Now when it does make me a better functionning member of society is it philosophically wrong but morally right? Based on this reasonning religious people would be wrong for bettering the society, if it is based upon religion, but not if they act exactly the same way but based on science? Now, based on empirical evidence, wouldn’t it make a religion that does good to the individual and society an evidence based belief and thus would justify the belief? Another point being Science is great because it just work and it is explainable and it can be reproduced, NOW i do have to believe scientist because i do not have time, nor the ressources nor an able mind to verify each and every part of it individually and personnally, so wouldn’t it be faith as well? because science can be proven buta vast majority cannot understand the proof they have to rely on the word of others that’s irresponsible and morally wrong Because of the same impossibility to verify all of science by myself as to verify the claim of a prophet about god – for a different reason aka me not being the chosen one- we could argue that science and god are both vastly a belief for the common man (being a man of science myself i tend to understand some of it which helps me realize how little i know and how much i just have to trust other on the subject) not sure if I make sense because english isn’t my native language.
Clifford was wrong in claiming a belief in god is a forced option. You may believe in something else because, essentially, that question is more about a belief in a creator. Believing in “God” is just choosing the nature of the creator. Thus, if i believe that the nature of the creator cannot be known, then i am abstaining from belief in god (or not) and am simply stating “i don’t know.” The same thing for going out or staying in; i may not have specifically chosen to do either, but it just happened that time passed and it became the next day without me having left the house the night before. The same argument can be made for going out; if i leave my house at any point, i will have “gone out,” so that will have happened without me choosing to do so.
I refuse to believe that it is “morally wrong” to disagree with published scientific studies, if we have a reasonable (to us) cause for doubt. It’s as ridiculous as a Baptist trying to convert an Atheist based on his “truth”, as found in the bible. To the Baptist, every word is pure, and to refute the word of God is completely ludicrous. Are we morally obligated to believe in the bible, if everyone around us is Baptist? Science has replaced religion for many.
The assumption at 8:32 is false, James wouldn’t necessarily support anti-vax because this is an option that CAN be decided upon intellectual grounds. James only believes our “passional” nature should guide actions when our intellect can’t. (the existence of God for example) Yes, the option is live, forced, and momentous, but that doesn’t mean it would justify the belief.
I feel there are some very serious ideas being presented here. Once a behavior is deemed “immoral”, it is usually punishable by law. This isn’t about whether or not vaccines are effective, it’s about whether we have a right to decide if they are. About whether anti-vaxxers should be presented with more thorough, unbiased studies to answer their concerns and increased transparency and accountability in big pharma, or presented with a pair of handcuffs. And this applies to all walks of science. In my opinion, the ideas presented here are dangerous and “immoral”, by their own measure.
7:00 not exactly. First off if the belief is Live, seeing yourself having the said belief would not make it right to have, your would just have the image of having it, I have the image of the booge man sitting in a chair, guess it is good to have it? The belief being forced would not make it right to have either, it would just mean you have a dichotomy on your hands, and that would be either right or wrong, which you would still have to prove with evidence. and belief that is momentous would not make it inherity moral, Hitler made the momentous choice to kill millions of Jews, guess it was morally good
so I spent 6 years in the US Army one of the most memorable stories I heard was from a 68W(Combat Medic) who deployed to Iraq in 2004. a convoy had been ambushed almost everyone died and one of the soldier’s that remained alive was missing everything from his ribs down. The medic said he had lost too much blood the young soldier was going to die in minutes and the dying soldier asked the medic if he was going to live. The answer the medic had to give him with a trembling pause was “No”. This was the first time the medic had seen death in war and the lesson he took with him was this ” You can call my belief in God dumb, but can you say the same for my hope in that young man and our fellow comrades to walk again”. the lesson to be learned is respect others beliefs, just because we have the ability to dissprove something, doesnt mean we need to prove it to everyone.
7:49 Doesn’t this just defeat the whole point of epistemic responsibility? An anti-vaxxer could see themselves not vaccinating their kids, they have to either vaccinate their kids or not and an anti-vaxxer would believe that their decision to not vaccinate their kids would make their and their kid’s lives better by making the kid be neurotypical. This means that this option is live, forced and momentous. Similarly, the boat owner could see himself not renovating the boat, he is forced to either renovate it or not, and his decision not to renovate it did make his life better by not making him poor. The option to renovate the boat or not is thus live, forced, and momentous. Therefore, either theists are morally wrong for believing in God or Epistemic Responsibility doesn’t really exist. I’m probably gonna opt for the latter one. Edit: Goddammit, why don’t I finish the article before making comments.
“The world is full of people who hold beliefs without any evidence…” Sorry, but you are a fool if you think that is accurate or persuasive. People don’t hold to positions just because or in the absolute void of evidence. They may not have the preponderance of evidence, but there is some something they can point to that their belief is based on.
I like this epistemic responsibility idea, but I take a much weaker position on it. I think you have a responsibility not to act on or disclose a wrong belief without also disclosing the observations that make it wrong*, allowing you to consider any idea you want privately or discuss it in the proper context. I also think “without proof” is too strong; rather, I would define a “wrong belief” as an idea with *proof against it . In other words, it is wrong to share an idea without disclosing any and all proof to the contrary . This would solve so many contemporary problems without drawing a lot of unnecessary controversy about God. We can’t prove that God is not real; that’s a belief for which there is no proof just as much as the opposite, so if we ban God, then we must also ban atheism. Many typical religious beliefs, however, would become immoral as individual ideas. That’s “the earth is 8000 years old”, “pi is exactly 3”, “Jesus rode around on a dinosaur” and the like. The weakness of this position is revealed in ideas like faith healing, or even the principle that God alone will decide whether you get COVID regardless of the precautions you take. These can do real, catastrophic harm when acted out, and they require additional ethical reasoning to ameliorate. So my ideas are not perfect, I disclose that problem with it. If you can solve that, please reply 🙂
My sister HAD Autism and now it is mostly gone… she went through different medications which took poisons/metals from her system (I do not know how you can be born with metal in you but ok (vaccines have metal in them))and were then peed out and has gone through numerous training sessions and learning sessions and it is almost impossible to tell the difference now. Before treatment/therapy: could not be held by anyone, could not be hugged by anyone, could not feel or express emotion properly, could not ask for things with words but would just freak out and cry, she had to use sign language for the first few years of her life, frightened to death to ride a horse and many other things. After all of this at age 15: she can speak perfectly fine, does not care about being hugged or held, does not even remember sign language, can now ride a horse, reads books daily, uses words to get what she wants, she knows how to play the clarinet, a lot more social in general. If you read up until now, I just want you to have an open mind about anything in life. Do not believe everything you hear and just consider those opinions that might seem completely false at first glance. I do not believe anyone will probably ever believe the Anti-vaxxers again. I should hope you will consider the possibility that there might be a slight chance that vaccines cause autism. GOD BLESS YOU!
As an adult on the autistic spectrum, it is incredibly insulting to think that people would rather watch their children suffer from life threatening childhood illnesses, rather than have a living autistic child. Much like ADHD, it can be difficult to raise autistic kids, but many of them grow up to be major contributors of ideas to society, rather than just being consumers.
Remember cold fusion? We all now know it doesn’t exist but when the phenomenon was first “discovered”, scientist started replicating the results of a nonexistent phenomenon in labs all over the world. Practicing science and believing what someone tells you BC they’re a ” scientist” are two different things.
Clifford and James are both wrong, at least in the way you have portrayed them. Neither of them accounts for the fact that unforced trivial beliefs can be held in the absence of adequate evidence and without any prospect of moral responsibility. For example, suppose I believe that red is the most beautiful colour. That is an unforced belief, because I could also not choose a colour. It is a trivial belief because it is highly unlikely to have a meaningful impact on anyone’s life. Lastly, I do not have a solid basis for this belief, since there are no sound arguments to show that one colour is objectively more beautiful than another. While you might not agree that red is the most beautiful colour, it would be absurd to suggest that my belief is morally wrong. Thus, I can hold an unforced trivial belief with insufficient evidence without any moral transgression. This is clearly inconsistent with both Clifford’s and James’ ideas, at least in the way they are presented here.
The difficulty lies in determining the good. I would argue that for many people (a number of very notable cases excepted) religion positively influences both their lives and the lives of those around them. For example, the Ibrahimic tradition contains a challenge to do good (phrased in a number of ways, the most overt being the Qur’anic “Vie one with another in doing good deeds for unto Him you shall return and He will decide where you were at variance”) and that challenge leads many people to act for the benefit of others. Meanwhile, anti-vaxxers can clearly be demonstrated unilaterally to be causing harm with their decision.
Wouldn’t William James’ argument allow for beliefs against Vaccination without evidence because it is a live belief (for some), forced belief, as you can only be vaccinated or not (there is no choosing not to decide) and a momentous belief because the damage (some believe) it causes to health and well being is significant?
Can someone explain how you are supposed to believe in something that is momentous option that has insufficient evidence. I think it’s supposed to be the other way around if something is seriously trivial and will have either no impact on your actions or you will block it’s influence on your actions because you know you cant act on an unfounded belief
A lot of teenagers I work with need to take an epistemologically responsible position around their uninformed beliefs about the safety of marijuana. They get so defensive at the mere suggestion that it isn’t perfectly safe and harmless, despite the multiple studies that demonstrate cognitive and developmental impairment with long term impacts, and despite the evidence that their own failure to meet their basic obligations as students is evidence that they themselves have already been impacted.
Re: didn’t buy the idea that agnosticism is a thing: sounds like he defined his way into his belief being acceptable which seems like a circumvention of his own rules. There is a kind of agnosticism where you believe something greater exists but you’re not sure what shape it takes, which is not at all like either of those options (belief in something specific/nonbelief.)
I’m at least grateful that this show presents both sides to an argument and not simply force an opinion into the minds of ignorant people. Make your own conclusion that you see fit based on the evidence provided. still don’t know why by episode 14 that we’re discussing God so heavily. There is still more to philosophy right? This comment is brought to you by Square Space.
Regarding Clifford’s argument stating that one should not be allowed to hold a belief, unless one has scientific evidence to prove same, consider this hypothesis: I wake up about 2:00 a.m. with the idea that this was the night of meteor shower. I choose to go outside in the hopes of observing the meteor shower, and proceed into my back yard. While in the backyard looking for meteors, a flying saucer appears directly in front of me with an incredibly bright light. Exiting the flying saucer by some unseen means an alien being appears in front of me and proceeds to make noises I do not understand, which I interpret as a language. After a few moments of this noise making without me responding (as I do not speak the language) the alien enters the flying saucer and the flying saucer disappears. I do not have any scientific evidence with which I may prove the existence of the aliens, however not believing in flying saucers and aliens is no longer possible for me. This would be a private belief, one that I hold and may share. How can one argue that a belief may only be held if it may be proven? Necessary proof levels lie within the recipient and their personal level of skepticism. Does epistemic responsibility argue that I may not hold an opinion unless my opinion is easily adopted by all. If that be the case I would like to direct your attention to a prior article in this series, and ask if We indeed exist. The problem, IMHO, stems more in proselytizing than in believing. I question the need of some people not only to share their beliefs but to insure that all others adopt the same belief. BTW I have never seen a flying saucer, but if I ever do see one, I will definitely believe in them.