Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="public hermit" data-source="post: 74604700" data-attributes="member: 421854"><p>In his landmark essay "The Ethics of Belief" William Clifford argued, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”</p><p></p><p>Do you agree? Why or why not?</p><p></p><p>Questions to consider:</p><p>1. What constitutes sufficient evidence?</p><p>2. How does one know when one has acquired sufficient evidence?</p><p>3. Can all beliefs be based on evidence?</p><p>4. Should one always believe what is true? If so, does that violate the supposed is/ought distinction that Hume gifted us with?</p><p></p><p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/#OriDeb" target="_blank">The Ethics of Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)</a></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem" target="_blank">Is–ought problem - Wikipedia</a></p><p></p><p>Note: Let <em>p</em> in the title stand for any proposition one might believe.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="public hermit, post: 74604700, member: 421854"] In his landmark essay "The Ethics of Belief" William Clifford argued, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Questions to consider: 1. What constitutes sufficient evidence? 2. How does one know when one has acquired sufficient evidence? 3. Can all beliefs be based on evidence? 4. Should one always believe what is true? If so, does that violate the supposed is/ought distinction that Hume gifted us with? [URL='https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/#OriDeb']The Ethics of Belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[/URL] [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem']Is–ought problem - Wikipedia[/URL] Note: Let [I]p[/I] in the title stand for any proposition one might believe. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?
Top
Bottom