
Believing without evidence is always morally wrong - imartin2k
https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-evidence-is-always-morally-wrong
======
archevel
The crux of the matter is what should constitute sufficient evidence. Is the
same level of evidence required for all beliefs? What about things for which
there are no evidence, eg value judgements - I believe fairness is more
important than freedom (or vice versa). Seems like an impossible standard to
need evidence for everything.

~~~
rendall
I suspect this conflates two semantically distinct kinds of 'belief': 'I hold
the value that fairness is more important than freedom' is not equivalent to
'I know certain facts to be true.'

The scientific method is one example of a principled approach to needing
evidence for everything: there is no belief, there are only theories that best
explain observed phenomena. Ideally, these should be shed like socks when a
better model comes along.

~~~
archevel
That you hold a certain value is logically true as long as you actually hold
that value. There is no belief necessary in that case. _Why_ you believe it,
i.e. the justification for that belief would need to be empirically grounded
if I understand the article correctly. That seems a tall order.

Further, isn't even the scientific method at its core also based on certain
beliefs about the world for which there is no empirical basis? Not that that
would make it any less valuable as a tool for understanding the world.

~~~
rendall
I suppose that I think of holding values and knowing facts to be non-
overlapping magisteria (qv Gould). In a reasonable person, facts will inform
values, but values don't need to be (and cannot always be) justified by facts.
You and I may have the exactly the same set of facts and nevertheless draw
different conclusions.

Belief in something as a fact, however, does need to be justified by evidence;
especially where used to support values.

>> isn't even the scientific method at its core also based on certain beliefs
about the world for which there is no empirical basis?

That's a good point. What do we accept as true, a priori, if we only believe
that for which there is evidence? After all, while there is a philosophical
basis for you to know that _you_ exist, there is no philosophical basis for
you to _know_ as a _fact_ that anything else besides you exists. It is a
conundrum.

Still, I think we can still acknowledge uncertainty in our _beliefs_. "I will
act in the belief that X is true even though I have incomplete certainty, but
will update my behavior and beliefs given new evidence."

------
sharemywin
It's not practical to be everywhere all at once to record first hand every
event. So, at some point you need to rely on others. The more limited your
resources the more you need to rely on others.

~~~
rendall
In my opinion, that supports the thesis even further. It's not necessary to
_believe_ something is true in order to use the information: one can
provisionally accept it until more information comes in. Ideally, this is how
the scientific method works.

~~~
imartin2k
Agree. Also many people ignore that it is actually possible to accept that
something is unknown, at least at a given moment.

Many of the most absurd beliefs are the consequence of people not being able
to accept that there is not an answer (yet) for a phenomenon. So instead, they
rely on "believing" to create an illusion of certainty for themselves.

