The act of actively combating our inductive bias in Kathryn Schulz’s Evidence in Kathryn Schulz’s essay, “Evidence”, the argument of the essay follows various situations brought up by Schulz, showing that people should take a positive approach to being wrong, and accept our error-prone nature, rather than obsessing with a perfect inadvertently-free ideal. Schulz ties together a lot of strong evidence, but fades back from a clear conclusion, steering the readers toward a relationship between error and the self. She further studies moral transformation on conversations, our attachment to a view wrongly identified due to our pre-conceived opinion off prior experience. Schulz stresses that in order for us to improve our relationship with to evidence,…
“Highly unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility”-David Duchovny. This familiar phrase from the popular nineties television show “The X-Files” manifested itself in my mind when reading the article that profoundly influenced the University of Central Arkansas’ Honors Program, Peter Elbow’s abridged version of “The Doubting Game and the Believing Game—An Analysis of the Intellectual Enterprise (Excerpts)”. Though on a much more theatrical and improbable level, this show relates to the Honors curriculum and Elbow’s paper with the same basic, parallel theme: doubt verses belief. In keeping this mindset, we can see: how Elbow’s proposal differs from “critical thinking” today, what can be assumed about the nature of truth and human intellectual…
The concept of believing someone words or having solid information towards a subject has people misinterpreting what is fact or fiction. In the article Things People Say, Niel Degrasses Tyson crafts an argument that heavily relies on analogies and explains them to get the point across. Tyson begins his essay by questioning why people believed Aristotle’s theories and the negligence of religion to facts. The rest of the author’s article compares various heavily misinterpreted concepts like “what goes up, must come down” and “the sun is yellow” for example and corrects the reader why others believe this as factual information. Tyson concludes his argument by stating, “”.…
Clifford and James are two philosophers who have contradicting opinions on whether having sufficient evidence is always necessary to believe in something. Where Clifford believes you cannot believe in anything without sufficient evidence, James believes that if the evidence doesn’t point in one way or another, it is justified to believe something based on our will. I will be arguing that James’ side is indeed correct. In James’ paper, he provides concrete evidence as to why his opinion is correct.…
When faced with a fact that a mere belief could end a life a person tends to change their mind. In Kelly McGonigals’ “How to Make Stress your Friend” this is McGonigal’s exact goal. An immediate interaction from the audience occurs when she asks how much stress they experience and how they feel about the impact of stress. The audience is kept engaged when she informs them that a study showed that those who believe that stress is harmful in their lives have an increased risk of death. The audience comes to the realization that their belief can kill them.…
Without proper evidence, this type of belief can be considered false and invalid. The norms of religious belief contradict ordinary beliefs in that it is unnecessary to provide evidence to back up a claim. Religious belief relies on “sola fide” or faith alone, as justification. One may ask, if religious beliefs are not…
I agree that we can’t believe in someone 100% all the time, because everyone can change. We can’t predict the future and we will never know about what will happen to anybody. Everyone has their own mind. Mind can change due to any situation.…
Clifford states that it is always wrong to believe something with insufficient evidence. This quotation helps to demonstrate the view that justifies belief depending upon having good reasons or evidence. His firm belief in evidentialism, which means without certainty and a solid basis of evidence and knowledge of a situation you, should never put fully believe it. Meanwhile reformed epistemology states that you can rationalize the belief of god based upon given evidence. Reformed epistemology use of both faith and minimal evidence to justify their beliefs is not reasonable.…
One subject of scrutiny is that throughout the instrument, the PBS refers generally to negative superstitions (e.g., breaking a mirror will cause bad luck) and neglects items referring to positive superstitions (e.g., carrying a lucky charm will bring good luck). Positive superstitions may serve different psychological purposes to negative superstitions. Similarly to other forms of positive illusions, beliefs in positive superstitions may be psychologically adaptive (Wisemen & Watt, 2004).…
Generally, Clifford is right that believing without sufficient evidence is wrong, but there…
How many times have we choose to stick with our false beliefs even when strong evidences presented? Loyal believers of Deity tend to abandon and neglect any evidence goes against the idea that God is Omnibenevolent. As Hume had concluded, “...the existence of suffering is prima facie evidence against the Deity as described”(Churchland 1986, p.379). “Why is there so much misery?”Hume asked(Churchland 1986, p.379). According to Hume, there is an explanation for the existence of misery and suffering; God knows people are suffering but prefers not to help.…
In the excerpt from Don’t Believe Everything You Think, Thomas Kida discusses the human belief system and the factors that influence them the most. He exemplifies how our beliefs may correlate to us making poor decisions when it comes to spending money and falling for quackery. Laslty, Kida highlights some major aspects of memory that many are unaware of- the fact that our recollection of past events are not always as accurate as we may believe, and that they are capable of fluctuating based on our feelings, mood, or environment. One of the points Thomas Kida made in this excerpt is the obvious yet so often overlooked fact that we are greatly influenced by the people we surround ourselves with and those we love.…
Humans are hardwired to form opinions and defend beliefs even if they might not be true. The article, Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds by Elizabeth Kolbert argues that humans are miss-led by false information. The rush humans feel when they win an argument supporting their beliefs is a feeling unreplicated by anything else, even if they argue with incorrect information. The article also states that humans tend to make quick judgements without fully understanding a situation. Wide media usage, when information is often incorrect, could put society into a dangerous position.…
Philosopher’s musings or debates can sometimes in fact span decades. One such philosopher’s debate is the relationship between doubt and certainty. William Lyon Phelps believed that with certainty you could accomplish almost anything. On the other hand and a stark contrast to Phelps, Bertrand Russell was of the sound mind that no one should be certain of anything, even their own opinions. While both intelligent minds bring up good points in their own respective way, both fail to recognize the complex, intricate system that makes up the human mind.…
Every human being has the ability to decide what they believe and what they do not. At a very early age, we develop judgement that allows us to choose whether or not to accept certain claims. These assertions may be tempting, but our reasoning allows us to critically analyze the information with respect to all of our previous knowledge. These claims may be faith based, fact-based, or opinion. Without recognizing it, we take every bit of information we gather, analyze it, and decide whether we accept its validity.…