Thread: Ethics of Belief

Stumbled upon this philosophical piece and really liked it. Was trying to make sense of what the recent influx of anti-vax protesting border blocking truckers in my area were doing. Not a long read but interesting. I’ve yet to see evidence of anyone with lizard DNA or with microchips from a vaccination, so should I believe there’s a conspiracy afoot to keep me from finding out?

https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-with...-morally-wrong

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Stumbled upon this philosophical piece and really liked it. Was trying to make sense of what the recent influx of anti-vax protesting border blocking truckers in my area were doing. Not a long read but interesting. I’ve yet to see evidence of anyone with lizard DNA or with microchips from a vaccination, so should I believe there’s a conspiracy afoot to keep me from finding out?

https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-with...-morally-wrong

Much of human history resulted from beliefs that have no or limited evidence to support them. Religion is at the top of the list. The biggest problem with believing things which are wrong is lack of education.

If you look at all the crazy people who are protesting, not just in Canada, but just about everywhere, most have a low level of education. Hearing or reading their rants only proves the point. Lack of knowledge, and a bias for or against political ideology is largely to blame for fake news, and the results we see from it.

Seems that it will only get worse with all the horrible people out there, trying to manipulate everything to the advantage of a few. Very difficult to combat ignorance of a biased mob that only believes what fits their distorted version of the world.

Any conspiracy, coordinated or not, is designed to minimize education and knowledge in order to perpetuate nefarious goals. But being informed requires sifting through the nonsense - a seemingly difficult task for the poorly educated. There seems little to be done about it.

Don’t think Clifford intended to be the prognosticator the author makes him out to be. However examples of what Clifford says can be found almost on any Google page you visit. The only thing left for a reader or searcher is to be highly skeptical of the written word. Whoever say pen mightier than sword was also damn well accurate. I personally don’t know whether to believe that which I find supporting my opinion isn’t another false report. That’s how much I trust the internet. Science at least has some sort of protocol for proof to follow when establishing truth and knowledge. Sometimes it feels as if I have to see it with my own eyes in a lab somewhere before I believe anything written.

I agree that education has an important role. Without some knowledge of scientific studies you’re pretty well toast in any argument nowadays. I think many protesters have an issue with authority. Perhaps some legal rulings went against them or they committed crimes and did time, whatever. When I was growing up, authority was labelled ‘the man’, did that imply lack of education or knowledge?

Interesting article, the summary of Clifford's main points seems to support his claim that believing without evidence is morally wrong, perhaps not always, but at least to a point, certainly in relation to many of these conspiracy theories that keep cropping up.
If we go in reverse order, his third contention that beliefs not supported by evidence pollute the common well of knowledge can be seen easily enough today by simply going online. Rampant conspiracy theories which can't possibly be proved are everywhere. I watched a news report of a woman claiming vaccines are terrible by trying to link them to quantum entanglement, to me just appeared insane.

Clifford's second argument about becoming "credulous believers", when you watch people spouting just the most ridiculous nonsense and wonder how anyone could ever get to think like that, it's the insidious way in which this initial acceptance can lead people to believing just about anything.

Which brings us back to where he started with notion that these ideas adopted through believing without evidence can eventually lead to dangerous actions, pretty much what we've seen with people with other beliefs latching onto anti-vaxxer propaganda and then putting their health and that of their families at risk by refusing to get vaccinated.

But to get back to your question, this is extremely relevant. Most people including anti-vaxxers aren't virologists or immunologists, even if they saw concrete scientific evidence how many would completely grasp the significance?
Those starting from a belief there is a global elite out to cull the population are bound to be suspicious of just about everything.
People have to choose someone they can trust to inform them about vaccine science, thankfully, most don't believe in global conspiracies of harmful vaccines because they aren't choosing the conspiracy nuts to listen to.

Seriously, is anyone going to get a better informed and reasoned opinion on vaccines from someone simply because they own a truck?
Should owning a truck give someone more right to have their opinion or voice heard over all the medical professionals on the frontline whose voices and opinions are struggling to get through?

I've long since stopped believing in belief or philosophy.
I'm inclined to trying to understand the brain and how it changes over time.
To think at one time I had a brain which led me to believe in some aspects of religion then to totally reject it, and I can't explain why.

It seems to be what your brain is wired up to believe changes through life.

Anti-vaxxers are far more likely to be people under the age of 40.

In the case of Christian belief, there is no need for evidence. Only faith is required but being gullible helps.
Christians don't even need to ask who wrote the Gospels, why only a small selection of them ever made it into the Bible, or where might be the original manuscripts.