14a. Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theories & Epistemic Responsibility. Part 1/2.
Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace: share your passion with the world.
For generations, just about everybody in the United States got vaccinations. And I'm sure there will be no conversation about this in the comments. And as a result, diseases like measles were all but eradicated.
But in 1998, a study published in a scientific journal linked vaccines with autism. Even though that study was later discredited, ever since then, a small but vocal subset of parents have refused to vaccinate their kids.
Now, measles are back, as is whooping cough, mumps, and other diseases that were nearly wiped out. Children's lives are being endangered because some parents are acting on beliefs that have no scientific evidence to support them. So, why am I talking about this on Crash Course Philosophy? Normally, when we talk about responsibility, we're talking about things that you do. But in philosophy, we sometimes face other obligations. Some philosophers have argued that we all have epistemic responsibility – that is, responsibility we have regarding our beliefs.
Epistemic responsibility is an especially interesting area of philosophy because it's where many of its sub-disciplines overlap – where epistemology brushes up against philosophy of religion, which bumps into ethics. And philosophers might argue that we live in a world that could probably use a lot more epistemic responsibility – or at least, more people who understand what it is. Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists.
The world is full of people who hold beliefs without any evidence. And not only that, they – like most of us – encourage others to share their beliefs. But over the past 200 years or so, philosophers have developed some pretty compelling responses to this phenomenon.
A few thinkers have come up with useful ways of thinking about the beliefs we have, and the harm they can cause, and what responsibilities go along with having them. Meanwhile, others have argued that we can sometimes hold beliefs without any proof. Not about vaccines, or global warming, or the moon landing – but about God.
[Theme Music]
W.K. Clifford lived in England in the mid-1800s, where the only vaccine that existed was for smallpox, and even that earned its share of scorn and ridicule at the time. But Clifford, who was both a mathematician and a philosopher, would probably have some very strong opinions about today's anti-vaxxers. Because Clifford was one of the leading proponents of epistemic responsibility of his time. He most famously, and bluntly, put it this way: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” And instead of using vaccinations as an example, Clifford told the story of a ship owner. He said, suppose there was a guy who owned a ship that he knew was old and decrepit and hadn't been inspected in a long time. That ship was scheduled to make a transatlantic voyage, and the owner worried that it might not make it. But, overhauling the ship would be pricey and time-consuming. In time, the owner talked himself into believing that the ship was seaworthy. The ship set sail. Then it sank. And hundreds of people drowned. But, the owner? He collected insurance money from his loss, and no one blamed him for the tragedy.
Now, most people would agree that the shipowner was responsible for the deaths of the ship's passengers. But Clifford went even further. He argued that the owner would have been guilty even if the ship managed to make the trip safely. Because: He was guilty of accepting a belief without sufficient evidence, and whether that actually leads to harm or not, he has still done wrong, epistemically and morally.
Now, you might argue, “Don't I have the right to believe whatever I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?” Yeah, good question. Clifford argued that there's no such thing as a private belief. Because: We all talk about our beliefs – some of us do it a lot – and it causes our beliefs to spread. But even if you never vocalize a belief, it still influences the way you act and the way others perceive you.
So in this way, a belief can spread subtly, insidiously, without a word being spoken. Think about other kinds of beliefs that lack evidence, for example sexist beliefs. Imagine a modern day sexist in an American university. Most of these people are gonna know that actually expressing their sexist views isn't going to fly. But a sexist's beliefs, even if they're never overtly stated, tend to show through in the ways they interact with women and speak of them. So, no matter what: You know them and you know their views and you know their views subtly influence others, particularly if they're a person in position of authority or respect. Since our views always have the potential to harm others, W. K. Clifford argued that we have an epistemic responsibility only to believe things for which we have evidence. And if you don't have evidence, you're morally obligated to refrain from the belief. Basically, you should withhold judgment until you investigate the situation.
Let's head over to the Thought Bubble to explore this more with some Flash Philosophy. It's Tuesday, and your teacher tells you that, this week, there will be a pop quiz. And she's nice enough to even define for you what she means by this: A pop quiz, she says, is a quiz that you can't know is coming in advance. You reason, however, that such a quiz is impossible, so you never study for it.
Here's your reasoning: The quiz can't be on Friday, because if Wednesday and Thursday go by with no quiz, then you would know it was coming on Friday, since that would be the last possible day. So Friday's out. But that means it can't be on Thursday either, because by the end of class on Wednesday, you would know the quiz would be happening the next day. But since it can't be on Thursday or Friday, it also can't be on Wednesday, because that's the only day left – so you would know in advance that it was coming.
