1. Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. (Page 6 paragraph 2)
2. …it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
3. The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs. (Pg 6 Paragraph 3)
C: It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. (Page 7, paragraph 2)
Clifford’s general argument throughout discusses that belief with insufficient evidence causes harm in others and can create “false beliefs” to spread. I find his argument to be valid yet I do not believe it is sound. The issues I have with his argument is that he never explains what “sufficient” evidence is, which would greatly strengthen his argument, and that he makes a very absolute conclusion that is not true in every single possible situation; Which only furthers his previous weakness without a concrete definition of sufficient evidence.
The lack of definition for sufficient evidence leaves a large hole in his argument, and this leaves his conclusion to not be true in the absolute form he presented it. Lets take religion as an example. There are many people who believe that there is insufficient evidence to believe in a higher power or God or whatever form you feel fits that category. While others believe that there is an over abundance of sufficient evidence to prove in the existence of a higher power. It can be argued, though, that those who say there is no higher power are making a belief with insufficient evidence, because while they say that there is no evidence that there is a higher power, they themselves have no evidence to support their own claim. This is where the hole in the argument lies, because it brings about the definition of “sufficient” evidence, something of which Clifford does not address.
That doesn’t mean I do not agree greatly with what he has to say; believing on insufficient evidence is often a very bad thing and leads to harm upon our society. His thesis is worth looking at in that it does provide a truth that is not absolute; believing things with what is seen generally as insufficient evidence, in the areas of public safety or court or anything like he presented, can lead to problems in that society due to false evidence and information. However, his lacking of definition leaves a very large hole in his argument that cannot go unaddressed.
Word Count: 440
BrandonC Blog 