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: 74605330" data-attributes="member: 421854"><p>I assume Clifford's intention was that we should follow the evidence wherever it goes. Which, I find a good many people seem to accept as the right course. So, I am thinking he had a more objective idea of sufficiency in mind. But, it's hard for me to imagine how one would know when some objective form of sufficiency has been reached. How does one avoid a kind of Pyrrhonian skepticism that says we should withhold judgment until all the evidence is in? Obviously, such skepticism isn't practical. We sometimes have to make decisions based on what we have at the given moment. If we allow that belief comes in various degrees of credence, then things get complicated.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good examples. Another example that often comes up is when one has a medical diagnosis where the odds are against recovery. And yet, it may be to one's advantage to believe one will get better in spite of the odds. I think it has been shown that believing one will get better actually increases the odds of doing so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="public hermit, post: 74605330, member: 421854"] I assume Clifford's intention was that we should follow the evidence wherever it goes. Which, I find a good many people seem to accept as the right course. So, I am thinking he had a more objective idea of sufficiency in mind. But, it's hard for me to imagine how one would know when some objective form of sufficiency has been reached. How does one avoid a kind of Pyrrhonian skepticism that says we should withhold judgment until all the evidence is in? Obviously, such skepticism isn't practical. We sometimes have to make decisions based on what we have at the given moment. If we allow that belief comes in various degrees of credence, then things get complicated. Good examples. Another example that often comes up is when one has a medical diagnosis where the odds are against recovery. And yet, it may be to one's advantage to believe one will get better in spite of the odds. I think it has been shown that believing one will get better actually increases the odds of doing so. [/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