Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Believing without evidence is always morally wrong

#1
C C Offline
https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-...ally-wrong

EXCERPT: You have probably never heard of William Kingdon Clifford. He is not in the pantheon of great philosophers [...] His once seemingly exaggerated claim that ‘it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence’ is no longer hyperbole but a technical reality.

In ‘The Ethics of Belief’ (1877), Clifford gives three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly, that is, to believe only what we have sufficient evidence for, and what we have diligently investigated. His first argument starts with the simple observation that our beliefs influence our actions. [...] What we believe is then of tremendous practical importance. False beliefs about physical or social facts lead us into poor habits of action that in the most extreme cases could threaten our survival. [...] But it is not only our own self-preservation that is at stake here. As social animals, our agency impacts on those around us, and improper believing puts our fellow humans at risk. [...]

The most natural objection to this first argument is that while it might be true that some of our beliefs do lead to actions that can be devastating for others, in reality most of what we believe is probably inconsequential for our fellow humans. As such, claiming as Clifford did that it is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence seems like a stretch. I think critics had a point – had – but that is no longer so. In a world in which just about everyone’s beliefs are instantly shareable, at minimal cost, to a global audience, every single belief has the capacity to be truly consequential in the way Clifford imagined. [...]

The second argument Clifford provides to back his claim that it is always wrong to believe on insufficient evidence is that poor practices of belief-formation turn us into careless, credulous believers. Clifford puts it nicely: ‘No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character.’ Translating Clifford’s warning to our interconnected times, what he tells us is that careless believing turns us into easy prey for fake-news pedlars, conspiracy theorists and charlatans. [...]

Clifford’s third and final argument as to why believing without evidence is morally wrong is that, in our capacity as communicators of belief, we have the moral responsibility not to pollute the well of collective knowledge. [...]

While Clifford’s final argument rings true, it again seems exaggerated to claim that every little false belief we harbour is a moral affront to common knowledge. Yet reality, once more, is aligning with Clifford, and his words seem prophetic. Today, we truly have a global reservoir of belief into which all of our commitments are being painstakingly added: it’s called Big Data. [...] In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used by algorithms to make decisions for and about us....

MORE: https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-...ally-wrong

- - -

Problem is, it seems to conflict with the declaration of it being universal, if in Clifford's day it was "a stretch" but now it isn't. And does this prescription itself really have solid "evidence" as opposed to depending upon persuasion and argument -- even intuitive feeling? It is a thought-orientation which most certainly is another intellectual invention as opposed to being discovered under a rock. (Nature doesn't dispense global "oughts" to begin with; and perhaps not even relativistic, local ones for a species if genetic and neural based evolutionary conditioning doesn't count as substantiating a formal moral rule or concept.)

~
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
(Nov 9, 2018 08:37 PM)C C Wrote: The most natural objection to this first argument is that while it might be true that some of our beliefs do lead to actions that can be devastating for others, in reality most of what we believe is probably inconsequential for our fellow humans. As such, claiming as Clifford did that it is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence seems like a stretch. I think critics had a point – had – but that is no longer so. In a world in which just about everyone’s beliefs are instantly shareable, at minimal cost, to a global audience, every single belief has the capacity to be truly consequential in the way Clifford imagined. [...]
No, every belief is only capable of being as consequential as you allow it to. It doesn't matter how large the audience. We'd have to presume all people incapable of individual judgement or some compulsive mob mentality to lend this any credence. And we very often do need to arrive at conclusions with limited information, i.e. believe something with insufficient evidence, as a matter of survival...like where we accept danger signals and group identity as heuristics in lieu of specific, individual knowledge.

This seems like an argument against all heuristics, which would seem to bar a significant method to arriving at knowledge...the purported goal.

Quote:The second argument Clifford provides to back his claim that it is always wrong to believe on insufficient evidence is that poor practices of belief-formation turn us into careless, credulous believers. Clifford puts it nicely: ‘No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character.’ Translating Clifford’s warning to our interconnected times, what he tells us is that careless believing turns us into easy prey for fake-news pedlars, conspiracy theorists and charlatans. [...]
The individual's responsibility for their own credulity and their need for heuristics are not mutually exclusive. You can form beliefs on incomplete knowledge while being cognizant of any biases or ideological bubble you may be vulnerable to. Granted, many are not, but ignorance is not, itself, immoral.

Quote:Clifford’s third and final argument as to why believing without evidence is morally wrong is that, in our capacity as communicators of belief, we have the moral responsibility not to pollute the well of collective knowledge. [...]

While Clifford’s final argument rings true, it again seems exaggerated to claim that every little false belief we harbour is a moral affront to common knowledge. Yet reality, once more, is aligning with Clifford, and his words seem prophetic. Today, we truly have a global reservoir of belief into which all of our commitments are being painstakingly added: it’s called Big Data. [...] In turn, this enormous pool of stored belief is used by algorithms to make decisions for and about us....
That presumes that we can recognize a false belief and are intentionally spreading it. That would be immoral, but this makes no argument that that is the case. It gives no suggestions on how we would even determine that we have formed a belief with insufficient evidence.

Big Data does not make decisions, as it is wholly responsive to input. This argument seems to deny the exact individual agency necessary to even attempt to follow it. As such, it's self-contradictory.
Reply
#3
Zinjanthropos Offline
Quote:Believing without evidence is always morally wrong

Does it make much sense to go any further? I mean if I had evidence then why am I believing?
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(Nov 10, 2018 05:36 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
Quote:Believing without evidence is always morally wrong

Does it make much sense to go any further? I mean if I had evidence then why am I believing?


Evidence also requires belief, commitment to it, or a thought-orientation which approves of the method or institution that is accepting that status for _X_. Since there are those who reject such (flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, 6,000 year creationists, Moon-landing conspiracy, paranormal skeptics, etc).

Goes back to the problem of knowledge being representational rather than non-mediated by the mind (direct contact with existence). As well as a metaphysical or archetypal version of the world being popularly inferred or declared morally necessary (it's always[*] intellectual or abstract rather than manifested by sensation). Resulting in the external environment which is "immediately given" being doubted in terms of accuracy or ultimate real-ness. The latter can arguably be variably interpreted slash described as well, thus even if the phenomenally concrete and tangible is accepted as "the true world" it may still lead to conflicting differences in the way an _X_ object, situation, or event is conceived (cognized / understood).

But OTOH, if one is a working member of or subscriber to an establishment's, profession's, or social sector's standards for evidence and facts -- then it should be a simple matter to comply when operating in that convention or practical context. Regardless of whatever loose ends are dangling outside of such in terms of evaluation elsewhere or one's own personal / private critiques of knowledge.

EDIT: footnote -----

[*] Mystics may claim they have experienced it, however. But even if granting that credibility their experiences may simply be another stratum of representation rather than non-mediated contact with be-ing. Certainly it would be for those who don't believe in any form of nondualism, monistic idealism, panpsychism, etc. Who consider an ultimate reality to be devoid of even a generic / objective version of mental characteristics -- outrunning both phenomenal manifestation and products of rationality / reason / reflective thought.
Reply
#5
Magical Realist Offline
Believing without evidence isn't always morally wrong. Sometimes it serves the function of giving hope in a seemingly hopeless situation. Some survivors of Jewish concentration camps probably believed they were going to be rescued one day, although they had no evidence for it. A gambler believes he is going to win lots of money, although he has no evidence of it. Believing life is worth living when one is suicidal and there is no evidence that it is. Sometimes belief enables an attitude and behavior that results in the outcome that is believed in without any evidence.
Reply
#6
Leigha Offline
I disagree. Believing isn't the same as knowing. If I say that I know something is true without evidence, then that could simply be ignorant. Not so sure we should apply morality to it. I can believe one of my friends is coming for dinner, simply taking her word for it. That's not evidence, but I believe it to be true. For me to say with certainty ''I know that my friend will arrive for dinner,'' is presumptuous. One can believe all sorts of things without a need for evidence. Religions are built around beliefs, and not knowledge. Although, the definition of ''evidence'' might vary from person to person.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Carl Sagan was wrong: ordinary evidence is enough (alt opinions about platitudes) C C 4 133 Jan 13, 2023 01:18 AM
Last Post: confused2



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)