[markcheb]

I was recently presented with this, and asked whether I agreed with it or disagreed with it. I admit I struggled to answer it.

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." The Ethics of Belief (1879) W.K. Clifford

What say you? Agree or disagree. Why?

*If this has been posted before I apologize.

[Laureate]

Originally Posted by markcheb

I was recently presented with this, and asked whether I agreed with it or disagreed with it. I admit I struggled to answer it.

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." The Ethics of Belief (1879) W.K. Clifford

What say you? Agree or disagree. Why?

*If this has been posted before I apologize.

That's dumb. We are constantly acting on probability.

[Gisgo09]

That depends on the definition of sufficient evidence for each situation.

[Crede777]

If we truly operated that way, we'd honestly get nothing done because we'd be stuck deliberating about it.

[Laureate]

Markcheb, don't tell me this thread is going to be used as to show how we believe things in our normal lives so we should believe in god.

[ISmokeIce]

Originally Posted by markcheb

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to act upon anything with insufficient belief." The Ethics of ISmokeIce

.

[GFX260]

Believe what you will, just don't tell me you know something that has little to no evidence.

ex. "I know God will take care of me"

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by markcheb

I was recently presented with this, and asked whether I agreed with it or disagreed with it. I admit I struggled to answer it.

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." The Ethics of Belief (1879) W.K. Clifford

What say you? Agree or disagree. Why?

W/ that quote, I believe, I am inclined to agree...

If we're indeed, "insufficient" we're deemed as none other than lacking as an individual. Therefore, if we lack the absolute necessities, we probably then lack the probable response all in-turn...

It's so wise IMO to observe all the facts of life equally to the best of our innate abilities, before jumping to any sort of conclusion. To try and justify any alternative method as a means to solving an unknown, well then... IMO is just blind ignorance.

[calebh]

i suppose so long as the relativity of "insufficient" is acknowledged, i can agree.

[hsilman]

I don't agree with sufficient cause being necessary for anything, without sufficient being defined into semantic oblivion. So I'd have to disagree. Of course, I also don't think we simply accept things for no reason, just some reasons are considered better than others and the reasons for such a decision are effectively infinite.

[markcheb]

Originally Posted by Laureate

Markcheb, don't tell me this thread is going to be used as to show how we believe things in our normal lives so we should believe in god.

Ok I won't tell you.

I wouldn't have told you that anyways.

You should believe in God because He is, not because I say you should.

Anyways no, that isn't the purpose of this thread.

[Kite09]

But, believing without proof is faith. And people say that faith makes them right. And faith can be a dangerous thing. If i believe my faith is right no matter how radical than I am right. Terrorists believed their faith told them to blow up the world trade center and kill infidels. Does that make them right? Faith tells a Christian that Jesus died for their sins. Does that make them right? Faith can be dangerous, so make sure you check your facts so you can BELIEVE.

[Tuff]

There should be some type of evidence for a belief, but not mandatory I suppose. Scientific beliefs, need proof. Religion is a faith thing.

I see no evidence for Noah's Ark. In fact, the evidence would indicate it never happened. An omnipotent being however, I am more open to. Why? Less able to be "disproved" since it cannot be.

[RamboPreacher]

what is insufficient evidence. I have a particular worldview, therfor, my evidences are "weighted" differently than someone else. what I consider to be overwhelming evidence, another may say is insufficient.

[Laureate]

Originally Posted by RamboPreacher

what is insufficient evidence. I have a particular worldview, therfor, my evidences are "weighted" differently than someone else. what I consider to be overwhelming evidence, another may say is insufficient.

What you are referring to is what I call a "frame of reality." All frames of reality are built on emotions and the needs of the person who holds that frame. Everyone has a frame of reality but ideally you should have none. Like the Buddhist teaches, you should see things for what they are (AKA eliminating your frame of reality). Hopefully philosophy teaches you to reduce the size of your frame or atleast become of aware of its boundaries.

Evidence has nothing to do with frames. If you are talking about evidence given in a certain frame, than that isn't evidence. It is merely a pillar in your frame.

[MVPaintballer]

I chose disagree, but the statement is too vague.

What defines sufficient evidence?

I believe that the evidence for evolution is sufficient to believe the theory is accurate. Many people believe the evidence is not sufficient.

Also, let's not muddy up the quote. It's "sufficient evidence", no where does it say "proof".

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

What defines sufficient evidence?

Required (necessary) elements to function; No more, no less...

*** Edit ***

Not preaching, but that's certainly how I interpret the word(s).

[madgoat]

statement is too vague for me.
1)"wrong" in what sense
2)what would sufficient evidence be?

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by Aaron5604

Required (necessary) elements to function; No more, no less...

*** Edit ***

Not preaching, but that's certainly how I interpret the word(s).

That wasn't really my point. If I pulled in a gas station and I asked the attendant "Please fill my tank to an acceptable level?", there is no real way of knowing how much gas he'll put in.

The point is, "sufficient" changes depending on who is setting the limits. And what is sufficient to one may not be to another.

[Aaron5604]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

That wasn't really my point. If I pulled in a gas station and I asked the attendant "Please fill my tank to an acceptable level?", there is no real way of knowing how much gas he'll put in.

The gas attendant would need to ask: To what end? Meaning, how many miles must you go from this station? What's your fuel economy like; how many mpg is your tank currently putting out?

Otherwise, I agree as well. If we cease to ignore the details than how can anyone strive to give any accurate representation in life?

Example:

From my door step every day, it takes me 15.5 miles to work going one way. So, for fuel costing $2.489 a gal. from QT @ 18 mpg to get down and back to work I would require a min. of 1.724 gal. to be "sufficient" (adequate) to and from. Any less, and I would probably be "insufficient." Anymore, and it's just icing on the cake, so to speak -- abundant to my needs, which I suppose would be more accurately classified as an unnecessary desire.

I realize the quote is vague, but I believe that was the intent. It's neither religious nor purely physical, but merely left open for everyone and anyone to apply by having left virtually zero limitations to begin; no set parameters, standards/laws/restrictions in other words.

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

The point is, "sufficient" changes depending on who is setting the limits. And what is sufficient to one may not be to another.

So than, would you be suggesting that someone w/ the same make/model of my vehicle going the same distance, same route... same everything would be working under different laws, different sets of data? Is that, really what you believe?

[madgoat]

The problem is that since the quote relies heavily on the interpretation of the reader then any poll taken from the quote has little value at best.