As he cautions. Evidentialism vs Non-Evidentialism - The Outspoken Blogger 1. Evidentialism is hard, and Clifford fully acknowledges this. Together, these considerations can help to motivate ones evidentialist theory. Whether these strategies succeed is controversial, but the problem of skepticism is a difficult and serious one, and no proposed solution is uncontroversial. (EVI) does not entail that whenever one has adequate evidence for p one believes p justifiably. In the philosophy classroom, one can easily conclude, based on the reading of James, that Clifford is unrealistic and just plain wrong in his evidentialism, hence that hes not worth engaging with. One kind of objection stems from the widespread occurrence of ones forgetting the evidence that one once had for some proposition. Such non-evidential, practical reasons for belief are the very things that James anti-evidentialism recommends. One, for example, might also count memories, apparent memories, or seemings-to-be-true as kinds of evidence. Religious Experience, Revelation and Tradition 9. A more typical internalist account might hold, for example, that the evidence one has at a time is that which is easily available to one upon reflection, so not all of ones beliefs count as evidence that one has at a time. Unfortunately, WTB* does not help in this case since James apparently thinks that IER is prima facie correct and that WTB* applies only in cases of counterbalanced evidence. In order to justify denying skeptical claims, we want to know what reason we have for believing that skepticism is false. Evidentialism is vulnerable in the case of beliefs that seem to play an essential role in guiding the ways we manage evidence. Put differently, one might think that one has to be able to believe p in order for one to be justified in believing p. (This second statement of the issue is more perspicuous, as I here set aside issues regarding doxastic voluntarism.) Since it is important for Mighty Casey to get a hit, and he can increase the probability of this outcome by believing in it, it seems that Mighty Casey has a good non-evidential reason to believe I will get a hit despite the fact that the evidence is against it whether or not he believes he will get a hit. This chapter discusses how James tried to respond to that challenge by delineating one specific case in which it was okay to believe a proposition on insufficient evidence. In order to be justified on such a view, one must not only follow ones evidence but also gather evidence in an epistemically responsible way. As it is, the professor is believing exactly as he ought to believe as he is driving to the theater. Indeed, we can see the centrality of this conception of justification throughout the history of philosophy, especially in its grappling with the problem of skepticism. It leaves us bare and powerless where we thought that we were safe and strong. In such a case, it seems wrong to say that the detective is justified in believing the proposition, since he does not even have available to him a way of reasoning from the evidence to the conclusion that Jones did it. Clifford continues It is the sense of power attached to a sense of knowledge that makes men desirous of believing, and afraid of doubting.. Clifford's Ethics of Belief is the evidentialism we need in these On its own terms evidentialism is unreasonable. below.) He remembers that yesterdays paper said that Star Wars, Episode 68 was showing at 8:00. Key works Because of this, the very same factors would be evidence for a principle of induction and for a principle of counterinduction the unobserved does not resemble the observed by their own lights. In such a case, it is very clear that Bill ought not to believe that his wife was having affairs. Clifford believed the evidence is needed for all beliefs. One might just accept that such examples show that we need to develop a notion of evidential support that does not appeal solely to logical relations between ones evidence and those propositions under consideration. This demand is wholly appropriate, of course, since evidence and evidential support are concepts central to evidentialism.
Clifford and James on Evidence and Belief - 3 Quarks Daily This highlights the role they can play in ones attempting to develop a complete evidentialist thesis. While it is not epistemically permissible to flout our evidentialist duties, we do think that in certain cases it is in some sense permissible to violate them. Evidentialism and the Will to Believe - Bloomsbury Publishing A further, more central epistemological issue regarding support has to do with the structure of justification. One standard account understands it as follows: one is justified in believing a proposition only if the evidence that one has makes it more likely to be true than not. July 20, 2021. William Clifford. This leaves it undecided whether evidence refers to actual or to putative evidence. Various responses are available to the evidentialist. In Clifford's argument for evidence in order to support a belief, he suggests that unless a belief influences the holder to take action, in this case to examine and repair the ship, one does not truly have a belief at all (Saint Leo University 499). If Clifford's Rule of morality is correct, then any one who believes a proposition that she does not take to be more likely than not, is, thereby, immoral. The duty is not only for experts and people with a big platform. A capsized ship. Of all of this, foundationalism implies that only that evidence which is non-doxastic, foundational, or ultimately supported by a foundational belief is capable of supporting (or conferring positive justificatory status on) a belief. The objection is that there, nevertheless, is a justificatory difference between the two cases, and evidentialism is unable to account for this. Furthermore, when we are confronted with an option to do or not to do something, we cannot help but choose one or the other; the choice is forced. We need an explanation of this. Clifford emphasized the importance of epistemic duties we have to members of our community, denying the kind of rugged individualism we now so often see in discourse on people's beliefs, as in the commonly held view that people have a right to believe whatever they want. In addition, one can appeal to cases like Feldmans logic student example (in section 3b. As alluded to above, not just any evidence whatsoever is relevant to determining whether ones belief is justified; it is only the evidence that one has that is so relevant. Note, however, that this reply depends crucially on being able to hold that the logic student is justified in believing p but not justifiably believing p. This is a tenuous position, at least for standard accounts of the basing relationi.e., for standard accounts of that which, when added to an instance of propositional justification, yields an instance of doxastic justification. But doubt we must, if we do our epistemic duties. Philosophy questions and answers. It also matters what propositions we take those factors to be evidence for. When developing evidentialism in his introductory textbook, Epistemology, Richard Feldman presents the following example. She looks at one problem and comes to believe that it is, indeed, a valid argument. My guess is that IER is most plausible if we take sufficient evidence to be evidence that is sufficient to make P more likely than not-P. Aikin provides detailed and thorough guidance through the big thicket of conditions that must be satisfied, according to James, if it is permissible to believe a proposition without having sufficient evidence. Do you think the example does help to make it plausible that knowledge is (or might be . Clifford's evidentialist theory relates its argument to a story of a ship-owner. . Clifford's reasons for thinking evidentialism is true -common appeal beliefs should be aimed at truth - each person has a duty to the whole of society to form beliefs in accord with the evidence (moral duty) -support rooted in duty has humankind James' argument against evidentialism - we choose our beliefs Clifford's Evidentialism - 151 Words | 123 Help Me Evidentialism is, therefore, consistent with both contextualist theories of justification and non-contextualist theories of justification. A strong version is Cliffords Principle (that its wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence). It is forced because we cannot help but choose one or the other; a failure to decide is, in effect, to choose to not believe that God exists. All evidentialist theories are united in understanding justification as being a function of ones present evidence as formalized in (EVI), yet many widely divergent options are available to one who seeks to develop the theory. There Clifford argued for a strict form of evidentialism that he summed up in a famous dictum: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence." Evidentialist theories can agree on this much while still providing differing accounts of evidence. I cannot see, touch, taste, smell, or hear evidentialism! It leaves us vulnerable, because we might have to give up beliefs we deeply care about if the relevant evidence we receive changes. William Clifford (1845-1879) was an English philosopher and mathematician. Sartwell offers a few examples meant to support his claim that knowledge is merely true belief. Again, this will vary from account to account. On his account, the degree to which ones evidence must support a proposition in order for one to be justified in believing it will fluctuate with the conversationally determined standards that govern attributions of justification and knowledge. In addition, it is only ones own mental information that is relevant to determining whether one is justified in believing that p. For example, my belief that Jones was in Buffalo at the time the crime was committed is not relevant to determining whether you are justified in believing that Jones committed the crime. William Kingdon Clifford - Wikipedia Only this is capable of justifying a proposition. In this way, evidentialists can try to utilize a distinction between different kinds of justification in order to try to explain away the intuitions that appear to support James general thesis, as well as his claims about religious belief in particular. Many evidentialists prefer a traditional broadly empiricist notion of evidence as consisting in experiences or perhaps the propositional contents of experiences. An immediate result is that ones evidence for p may be enough to make believing p justified in one context (where the conversationally-determined standards for justification are relatively low) while failing to make believing p justified in another context (where the standards for justification are much higher). My belief that I have hands appears not to be able to justify the proposition that I am not a (handless) brain in a vat. 2 CLIFFORD,WILLIAMKINGDON Despite its historical pedigree and influence, however, some philosophers working on the epistemology of religion have pushed back against Clifford's evidentialism.WilliamJames(seejames,william),forexample,istheauthorof themostinfluentialcounter-piecetoClifford'sfamousaddress.AccordingtoJames These conditions are satisfied, according to James, by some religious propositions. Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy However, while Clifford says that knowledge that is properly founded is a great and cherished good, believing on the basis of insufficient evidence is a stolen pleasure. Furthermore, it would be arbitrary from ones own point of view to follow one rule for inquiry and not another without having a good reason to prefer it. According to foundationalism, a belief is justified if and only if: either it is a foundational belief or it is supported by beliefs which either are themselves foundational beliefs or are ultimately supported by foundational beliefs. (10 points) (b) Explain in your own words one of the two reasons we might want to accept this principle even in the case of trivial beliefs? Clifford thinks the lessons from such high-stakes cases generalize to all cases because even apparently innocuous false propositions allowed into a system of beliefs damage ones ability to identify other truths (the content argument (34-36)) and the habit of believing on the basis of insufficient evidence is liable to let in false, high-stakes beliefs (the habit slide) (37-41). Cliffords The Ethics of Belief 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. 3) When reasons cannot guide us on concluding a inescapable answer, then it is legitimate to decide based on other points. It includes their article, Evidentialism, which has come to be viewed as the definitive article on the theory. A strong model remains Clifford's Belief (that it's false, always, everywhere, plus for everyone, at believe any upon insufficient evidence). For the foundationalist, some such evidential states are crucial as only they can justify the foundational beliefs.). In such situations, it can be permissible for one to believe a proposition in the absence of sufficient evidence.