Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pitfalls of intuitive decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the article, "The Will to Believe", William James responds to W.K. Clifford who argued that it "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence". James held the belief that it 's more important to accomplish truth than to avoid error a and that it can in fact be reasonable to hold a belief without sufficient evidence. Both philosophers, in my opinion, offer persuasive arguments; however, I feel that beliefs are often a moral issue and the choice to believe can be an emotional or instinctual one rather then an intellectual one. Therefore, I don 't support Clifford 's argument that it its wrong in every situation to maintain beliefs based on insufficient evidence and plan to argue against …show more content…
Your moral compass forms an ethical norm, and this is very much an impulsive decision, not one made based on knowledge. Human beings’ belief systems don’t always work according to evidence. Belief is made up of many different factors and many times we can very easily believe something simply because it is embedded in our belief system, with little to no evidence. Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims that everyone has a moral duty only to believe what is supported by reliable evidence and that we do more harm than good in doing so. Many agree with this belief but I feel it is not a realistic view because it displays a lack of trust and faith. I agree more with James who argues that it is appropriate to have individual beliefs on non- rational grounds, as in matters of passion, desired out come and choice. James claims that belief without evidence is justified for "genuine options" because belief in a fact is necessary for
belief is not to produce true belief. Instead theistic belief allows the believer to avoid
Now in the case of Schulz, she talks about the famous philosopher Descartes. He brings up the argument that “error does not arise from believing something that isn’t true, but believing in insufficient evidence” (362). Descartes wanted to be an ideal thinker and take in every bit of evidence he possibly could before drawing a conclusion.
that, there is two sides to every idea or "assertions", a blik. That that is a
that it is the majority who is truly mad, and not the minority who have been wrongly
that people should never lie, no matter the consequence. Miller portrays the idea in The
that it is not possible to judge any one in court in the favor of any side, it
that no man was so guilty that God would not forgive him, but in order for that
This is proven when Professor Dawkins said that faith is without evidence because there is no evidence we call it faith. Nonetheless, Dr. Lennox responded with “ I presume you have faith in your wife, or do you have any evidence for that?” Professor Dawkins then returned with “ Yes plenty of evidence, I…” Professor Dawkins was instantly caught off guard by promptly counter his preceding
During our class discussion, we talked about one of the readings that were assigned that week. The reading was Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine by Galileo. We were split into groups of four and we had to discuss part of the reading that we thought was interesting. Our group decided to pick the second paragraph, because it shows how if one is close minded and stuck in their beliefs, it would be very difficult to convince them that anything other than their beliefs are right, even if there is sustainable evidence to say otherwise. In this paragraph, it explained how there are two types of people. One who has the background and accepts the new claims and those who has the background but does not accept it. Basically, people who are pliable
So we may believe things to be true, because of scientific proofs, experience or just because we believe, but most of these "truths" cannot be backed up by strong enough evidence to prove that they are completely true.
that none have innocence and even the best among us can be brought down to a
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you your self test and judge to be true."
Should we be able to believe what we want as long as we don’t act on
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false