James David Clifford

Clifford starts his essay with a ship owner who allows a vessel that is need of major repairs to go out on the voyage. The ship owner has failed to make sure the ship is safe for the voyage; he has convinced himself that the vessel is seaworthy. The ship, carrying many of passengers, sinks in the mid-ocean, killing all that was aboard, and the ship owner collects the insurance payment. Second part, a group of people levies untrue (and uninvestigated) charges against others, though they believe them to be true. Clifford notes that these people might be guilty of acting wrongly; the ship owner ought not to allow his boat to sail, and the accuser ought not to have made false accusations. However, Clifford argues that the actors are also culpable …show more content…
However, he argues that beliefs based upon insufficient evidence are wrong regardless of how trivial they seem. Beliefs shape our actions, and we ought not act based on unjustified beliefs. But belief in unquestioned claims trivializes the faculty of belief. If we trivialize the importance of justifying beliefs, we are more likely to end up acting based on unfounded beliefs at some point. Thus, we ought never believe things. For similar reasons, the duty to question and justify beliefs extends to all people, no matter their place in society; since any person is capable of promulgating or stifling poorly supported propositions, failure to question beliefs may lead to others actions based upon those unjustified beliefs. Clifford is sensitive to the difficulty of the duty to doubt beliefs, both because it takes substantial effort and because it undermines the comfort that some beliefs themselves bring. However, he argues that the sense of security and power that our beliefs bring is “highest and best” when the belief “has been fairly earned by …show more content…
When you have evidence and data that exist, but are not sure of how to explain it for a person perspective this can leave doubt of something in complete logic. I think if I was in his position I would examine the evidence using a form logically fallacious we could see that it would not suppress any doubt, we would be left to inquire if things occurred beyond the mind. This makes a person wonder how and why anything exists at all, and this will cause you to investigate the problem that can’t be solved. This will make a person assume and in a person, mind it will become sufficient to them. I think one should always take a chance, and if we don’t, we are wrong regardless if it is proven right or wrong. I strongly do not agree with this argument. There is a big difference between chance and guarantees. There is reason why there are chances and not guarantees because it can be proven as not true. Odds are nothing but a collection of people’s evaluation of what their opinions are sufficient to believe something else is the case, nothing more. The fact that a person has disregarded and criticize the idea of human instincts such as suspicions and exceptions. There have been many cases solved just by “instincts” by an experienced investigator; Clifford has made a dispute that an investigator can be wrong, but I think he has