14b. Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theories & Epistemic Responsibility. Part 2/2.
[Video: 05:01]
Now, any amount of rationalization that will convince you that you don't have to study might sound pretty sweet. But, in this case, you're probably going to regret it. Because, after all, if your teacher tells you there's going to be a quiz, chances are, there is going to be a quiz. The fact that you've constructed a brilliant mind game that proves that it won't, isn't going to make that quiz not happen. So, beliefs about vaccines and shipworthiness may be irresponsible because of the danger they pose to others, but this case demonstrates that irresponsible beliefs can be damaging to you, as well. Thanks,Thought Bubble!
Clifford made a pretty convincing case for epistemic responsibility. And it's worth pointing out that his beef wasn't only with ship owners or kids who didn't study. One thing his arguments were meant to show is that religious belief is epistemically irresponsible. Belief in a God whose existence can't be proven was simply “blind faith,” he said. And blind faith leads a person to ignore other facts and arguments, causing them to live an unexamined, unthoughtful life that Clifford described as “one long sin against mankind.”
Unsurprisingly, this idea was met with some counterarguments. Let's hear from one of his interlocutors: 19th century American philosopher and psychologist William James took issue with Clifford's thesis that it is immoral to believe something with insufficient evidence. James acknowledged that one of his beliefs that was most important to him – his belief in God – lacked evidence. So he set out to demonstrate that certain beliefs can be held, morally, even if there's nothing you can really point to, to back them up. Now, James recognized that it would be ridiculous to say it's ok to believe in just anything you wanted. So he narrowed down his claim to argue that, when you adopt a belief, you have options. And the nature of those options can basically determine the moral defensibility of the beliefs you end up holding.
Specifically, he said that the options you face when choosing a belief could be either live or dead;
forced or unforced; And momentous or trivial. You face a live option when you're considering a belief that you could actually see yourself having. For instance, maybe you've never had a pumpkin spice latte. But you love pumpkin, and you love lattes, and you love spice, so you hypothesize that you would enjoy a pumpkin spice latte. That's a live option for you – because you can imagine yourself believing that you'd like a pumpkin spice latte. On the other hand, you probably can't even entertain the possibility that you'd enjoy, like, a dog food spice latte. Try as you might, you just can't imagine accepting that option as an actual belief. So, that's a dead option to you. Now, a forced option is one in which, whatever you do, you've made a choice. You can't not choose. ‘Stay in or go out,' is a good example of a forced option. You have to do one or the other; you can't wait and decide later. Because, as you wait to decide, you've stayed in and thus, you have made your choice. But unforced options are those where you can just opt out of choosing. If I let you pick peanut butter or ham and cheese, you can always just decide to have neither.
So your choice is an unforced option. A momentous option is one that, if you choose it, stands the chance of radically changing your life for the better. Accepting an opportunity to go to the International Space Station, for example, could be momentous. But the option to have French fries with your burger would be trivial – eat them, don't eat them, either way – not gonna make a huge difference in your life. Now, James said that, if you're considering whether to believe something for which there's not sufficient evidence, it's permissible to still believe it – so long as it's a live, forced, and momentous option. And religious belief just happens to fill all of those criteria.
First, James said, believing in God is a live option for himself and a whole lot of other people. He also argued that religious belief is a forced option. That's because he didn't buy the idea that agnosticism was really a thing. He figured that withholding judgment is the same as not believing – so you either believe in God, or you don't. Finally, James thought religious belief is momentous – it has the possibility to greatly improve your life. So, he concluded that we are justified in believing in God in the absence of evidence through faith alone. The problem is, if we're justified in believing in God in the absence of evidence, then we're also justified in believing that it's ok not to vaccinate our kids. Because that, too, is an option that can be described as live, forced, and momentous.
So unfortunately, philosophy can't just make all of the baseless beliefs in the world go away. But it can help you argue against those ideas intelligently. Today we have learned about epistemic responsibility. Clifford says it is always wrong to believe without sufficient evidence, but James says there are some exceptions – namely, religious belief.
Next time we will consider whether we can gamble our way to belief in God – stay tuned!
This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs or online stores for you and for your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless of skill level, no coding required.
Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer. Squarespace: share your passion with the world.
Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out amazing shows like Brain Craft, PBS Game/Show, and Gross Science.
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.
