What do people here think of ths quote?

[NickOtani]

I'd like to hear what people here think of this quote:

To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.  

If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it--the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.

"But," says one, "I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments." Then he should have no time to believe.

--William Clifford

bis bald,

Nick

[Ellen Stuttle]

Nick writes, "I'd like to hear what people here think of this quote:

To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.  [....]

Actually, I don't think it is "wrong always, everywhere," etc. Sure, ideally, one tries to question everything. But (a) realistically speaking, one hasn't time; and (B) belief systems do have their uses for humans. I'm not of the opinion that the development of belief systems was an aberration in human development. The subject would be a long one, and one I doubt I'll be up to arguing at any length (if at all), but I don't agree that the human tendency toward belief systems (using that term for the wider category in order to avoid debates about the meaning of "religion") has been an evil foisted on humans, or arrived at by evasion or whatever. Consider a primative tribe: life is difficult; existing from day to day needs attention. Worrying about whether there really are gods or not, whether one's ethos is the best or not...it needed some pretty advanced development of material security before people had time for this. But meanwhile, they did have human minds and thus a need for an ethical guide. An ancestor-verified belief system came in useful. And, I think, still does for a lot of people in the modern world.

Ellen

___

[Mike Hardy]

Nick writes, "I'd like to hear what people here think of this quote:

To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.  [....]

[ ..... ]

Consider a primative tribe: life is difficult; existing from day to day needs attention. Worrying about whether there really are gods or not, whether one's ethos is the best or not...it needed some pretty advanced development of material security before people had time for this. But meanwhile, they did have human minds and thus a need for an ethical guide. An ancestor-verified belief system came in useful.

___

(Ellipsis mine.)

In math courses the instructor often wants the students to learn a "suffiicient reason" to believe (e.g.) the quadratic formula, but the students, if they dislike math and are taking a compulsory course, DEMAND DOGMA INSTEAD and can be angry if they get sufficient reasons instead of dogma.

Somehow this observation should fit into this tipic; I'll let others dicede specifically how.

Ellen, I'm docking you one point for spelling; last I checked it was "primitive". (Wait ... maybe Charles Darwin held that it should be "primative" .....? Philosophy is so difficult...)

-- Mike Hardy

[NickOtani]

Hi Ellen and Mike,

I was waiting for a little more participation here before I jumped in, but I guess I this will be okay.

Ellen, you seem to have the pragmatic response, one that William James would agree with, that it is sometimes “useful” to have a belief. Both you and he seem to reject the Categorical Imperative aspect of the claim, that it is “always and everywhere” wrong to have an unquestioned belief. Perhaps there is a situational ethic. If there is a gap in knowledge and a belief is a “live option,” (A “dead option” would be something like being a Hindu or Buddhist in a Christian culture. Or it could be, like you describe in the other thread, Peikoff disagreeing with Ayn Rand.) then James would recommend us to go for it. He calls William Clifford a coward for wanting to have proof before believing. Are we always certain the floor won’t collapse under us when we take a step? Does a General have to know that none of his troops will be casualties before he attacks? Sometimes, waiting for too much proof can paralyze us.

Mike, yes, “sufficient reason” is used to support truth claims, on the assumption that absolute proof is not possible. It’s a high degree of certainty we are looking for to justify beliefs, and then we consider them facts or knowledge rather than belief. And, this gets shaky. A belief without “sufficient reason” is what Clifford seems concerned about, but even theorems and laws can be wrong. Someone once said we need to use all our truth tests and still keep in mind that we could be dead wrong, and, in that, we could be right.

Clifford, however, uses examples of when it could be disastrous to make decisions on the basis of unquestioned beliefs. If a surgeon ignores scientific research and cuts where he “believes” the incision should be made, this could be bad. If someone ignores the warning signs that his car’s breaks need fixing and loans out his car to a family that dies in a crash when the brakes fail while the car goes down a hill, it would be his fault for believing on insufficient evidence. His point is, if it can happen anywhere or anytime, it is wrong always and everywhere to believe on insufficient evidence.

There is also the comeback for the “live option” concern. It seems to dissolve into cultural relativism. Buddhism may be more reasonable than Christianity, even if it isn’t more popular in this culture.

I’ll have more to say soon about the relationship between faith and reason.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Ellen Stuttle]

In an earlier response to Nick's question about opinions of the William Clifford quote he posted, I took issue with the view that it was "wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence," giving as one of my reasons that it's not possible to question everything; time wouldn't permit.

In the "Another erroneous statement about JARS" thread in the Sciabarra Corner, L. W. Hall posted a quote from Herbert Spencer which eloquently expresses -- from the reverse side -- my view of the ideal attitude:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

"Contempt prior to investigation" is the attitude NOT to have. Thus it isn't that one in fact does question everything, which would be impossible to do, but instead that one holds nothing off-limits to questioning, that one declares no boundaries to questioning, that one subscribes to no beliefs that aren't subject to questioning should reason to question them arise.

Ellen

PS: In returning to this thread to post the above Herbert Spencer quote,

I notice a subtlety in the Clifford wording which I didn't attend to

when I read it earlier. He speaks of believing upon "insufficient evidence." I'm not sure what he's meaning by "insufficient" -- conversely by "sufficient." One could have "sufficient" reason to believe something one hasn't actively questioned. A common everyday example in technologically modern societies: how many have ever really questioned how electricity works (and just what the supposed phenomenon "electricity" is)? Few, I daresay. But people believe there is such a phenomenon and that it DOES work to power lightbulbs, appliances, etc. I think there's "sufficient" evidence to believe this just on the basis of the kind of uninformed views of physics which a person would acquire growing up in an electricity-powered environment.

___