Freethinking

[Willamena]

William Kingdon Clifford
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.


Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?


My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

I agree with Mr. Clifford, except that I would express it: knowledge of a thing is required for belief in it to occur. Without evidence of something we cannot even know of it, nevermind believe in it.

It is a moral issue the way he has worded it, yes. His quotation is neither hypocritical nor incoherent.

Irrational does not go against reason, rather it circumvents it. If reason wishes to place itself in a position of contrast to irrationality, that is its perogative --it is not necessary.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you agree or disagree with William Kingdon Clifford? Should evidence be required for belief? Does this qualify as a moral issue?

Is this quotation hypocritical or incoherent?

My personal stance is that there are three possible categories for human belief: rational (according to reason or evidence), faith based (without reason or evidence), irrational (against reason or evidence). Irrational beliefs certainly appear to be indefensible but believing in something that reason or evidence cannot yet touch does not seem indefensible as long as one is willing to give up those beliefs if one encounters a new argument or new evidence that indicates otherwise.

I agree 100%. In my own case, it wasn't that experience on Feb. 28, 1974 that really convinced me of anything. I think I actually put a fair amount of effort into disbelieving it. IT simply couldn't be possible, I argued with myself. The kick in the head for me was when I duplicted the experience... not to mention triplicated. By my tenth go round... I was a confirmed believer. So, I had my evidence, as I was able to duplicate the experience. The biggest thrill was when I discovered that it is a transferable experience.

When I was about 20, I took on 2 "students" and was able to help them to gain their own inner experience. That pretty much removed ALL my doubts. I have not worried about it much since. However, I no longer would consider taking on a "student", as that has its own pitfalls.

As I explained to my mom just recently, I never stopped believing, and my adventures in consciousness never ceased (and still have not)... I just stopped talking to people about it. It's not like many can actually understand what I am blathering on about anyways. My self imposed silence ended shortly after I began writing my autobiography two years ago. After so many years, it hit me like a bombshell, "What if I am right?" I reasoned that it would perhaps be the greatest sin of all to say nothing and leave you all none the wiser. "If I am wrong, it ought to become plain before too long."

So far, I am still in "all systems go" mode. I look at how some react to what I say, and understand one simple thing. It isn't JUST me experiencing this new way of looking at reality, and I am hardly alone in my thinking.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

SolioDeoGloria:

Could you give some examples, please?

the doppleganger

Historical events could easily fit this catagory. Take for instance, this thread happening. Even if one were to erase this thread, unless we could go back in time, there are no conditions under which we could falsify the acknowledgement of this thread's existance at this particular time. Even if we could go back in time, this threads existance would be embedded in our memories.
Certain sciences fall into this catagory also; Archeology, Geology, psychology(especially being as how many claims made by those who study the human psychy base their findings on the subjective testimony of studied subjects), etc. Many claims of these sciences can not be dublicated due to their historical or subjective nature and therefore can not be falsified.

BTW, I like the signature.

Sincerely,
SolideoGloria

 

[doppelganger]

Historical events could easily fit this catagory. Take for instance, this thread happening. Even if one were to erase this thread, unless we could go back in time, there are no conditions under which we could falsify the acknowledgement of this thread's existance at this particular time. Even if we could go back in time, this threads existance would be embedded in our memories.

So here you mean by "History" events about which we can communicate and verify a shared, personal experience? That's the meaning suggested to me by your example. Or do you mean History in general - as in the academic field?

If the former, there could be some agreement to some basic, experiential facts, but a tremendous divergence in individuals' experience of those facts right?

For example, while several people have a subjective experience of the "existence" this thread, which they could verify by communicating with one another and sharing the aspects of that experience they might agree on the fact of the thread's existence and the words different people that wrote placed into it and the order of the posts and whatnot, but wouldn't you expect a different story from everyone regarding what this thread is "about"?

It seems to me that we can agree to recognize an outside object by which we can measure and compare our subjective experiences, which is the method of "science" - the subjective experience of experimentation as measured by an accepted outside unit of measurement and the agreed logic of mathematics to eliminate "subjectivity" and establish "repeatability". Isn't this what "falsifiable" means - that we have reached a precise agreement about external measures by which we can compare our subjective experiences - (be it a ruler, a beaker a metric scale and the precise language of mathematics)?

Can we actually compare the subjective experiences themselves or is it only by reference to a common agreed language of measurement by which they may be mutually understood? And for any subjective experience that has no mutually agreed outside measure (i.e. no "science"), can we actually have a complete communication with one another?

BTW, I like the signature.

Thanks.

the doppleganger

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

So here you mean by "History" events about which we can communicate and verify a shared, personal experience? That's the meaning suggested to me by your example. Or do you mean History in general - as in the academic field?

I'm confident that I could make a case for both.

If the former, there could be some agreement to some basic, experiential facts, but a tremendous divergence in individuals' experience of those facts right?

For example, while several people have a subjective experience of the "existence" this thread, which they could verify by communicating with one another and sharing the aspects of that experience they might agree on the fact of the thread's existence and the words different people that wrote placed into it and the order of the posts and whatnot, but wouldn't you expect a different story from everyone regarding what this thread is "about"?

Sure, one major factor that always needs to be taken into consideration is individual perception. For instance, one may claim to have witnessed a thread with 25 posts and another claims to have witnessed a thread with many posts. While there may be minor perceptual differences, it does not negate that both witnessed the same thread.

It seems to me that we can agree to recognize an outside object by which we can measure and compare our subjective experiences, which is the method of "science" - the subjective experience of experimentation as measured by an accepted outside unit of measurement and the agreed logic of mathematics to eliminate "subjectivity" and establish "repeatability". Isn't this what "falsifiable" means - that we have reached a precise agreement about external measures by which we can compare our subjective experiences - (be it a ruler, a beaker a metric scale and the precise language of mathematics)?

Where the disagreement happens is when it comes to comparing correlation with repeatability. An experience may be able to be correlated on many levels, but they can not be repeated, especially when one takes into consideration other factors like time, etc. You do however make some really nice points on how experiences are indeed confirmed scientifically but that still does not constitute repeatability or falsification.

Can we actually compare the subjective experiences themselves or is it only by reference to a common agreed language of measurement by which they may be mutually understood? And for any subjective experience that has no mutually agreed outside measure (i.e. no "science"), can we actually have a complete communication with one another?

I would say yes. The biggest problem we face is skepticism put on by a scientific community that can not meets it's own standards put forth and linguistic conventionalism allowing people to communicate using certain words and claiming to have different meaning then they actually do. I've probably opened a big ole can of worms on that one so I'll leave it at that for now.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[doppelganger]

Where the disagreement happens is when it comes to comparing correlation with repeatability. An experience may be able to be correlated on many levels, but they can not be repeated, especially when one takes into consideration other factors like time, etc.

Can you elaborate on this distinction, please? I'm not sure I am receiving your intended meaning.

The biggest problem we face is skepticism put on by a scientific community that can not meets it's own standards put forth and linguistic conventionalism allowing people to communicate using certain words and claiming to have different meaning then they actually do.

Though I don't perceive that it is limited to the "scientific community," it seems we are in agreement about how attempted communications fail.

I've probably opened a big ole can of worms on that one.

Probably.

the doppleganger

 

[PureX]

I agree 100%. In my own case, it wasn't that experience on Feb. 28, 1974 that really convinced me of anything. I think I actually put a fair amount of effort into disbelieving it. IT simply couldn't be possible, I argued with myself. The kick in the head for me was when I duplicted the experience... not to mention triplicated. By my tenth go round... I was a confirmed believer. So, I had my evidence, as I was able to duplicate the experience. The biggest thrill was when I discovered that it is a transferable experience.

When I was about 20, I took on 2 "students" and was able to help them to gain their own inner experience. That pretty much removed ALL my doubts. I have not worried about it much since. However, I no longer would consider taking on a "student", as that has its own pitfalls.

As I explained to my mom just recently, I never stopped believing, and my adventures in consciousness never ceased (and still have not)... I just stopped talking to people about it. It's not like many can actually understand what I am blathering on about anyways. My self imposed silence ended shortly after I began writing my autobiography two years ago. After so many years, it hit me like a bombshell, "What if I am right?" I reasoned that it would perhaps be the greatest sin of all to say nothing and leave you all none the wiser. "If I am wrong, it ought to become plain before too long."

So far, I am still in "all systems go" mode. I look at how some react to what I say, and understand one simple thing. It isn't JUST me experiencing this new way of looking at reality, and I am hardly alone in my thinking.

I missed something. What experience are you talking about?

 

[gnostic]

I've never heard of Clifford.

As to his quote. I would not use "always, everywhere, and for anyone".

It really depends on what belief or the situation is.

 

[sojourner]

One of my seminary profs once said that "Faith requires evidence." Faith is a "sorting process," whereby we decide what it is the evidence points to.

 

[ayani]

at the same time, one person's "irrational belief" is another's test of faith, or even a reason to believe.

for example, one might cite that given the violent things that happen in the world, belief in a loving God is irrational. another person may take that given as even more reason to put trust in a loving God and follow Him.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Can you elaborate on this distinction, please? I'm not sure I am receiving your intended meaning.

Sure, when somebody states that when people claim that the Bible is inspired by God, which actually takes into consideration other religious works, ontology, etc. which, by definition would be correlation, as could be done with proving the existence of this thread, that a geological movement caused a certain formation in a cliff (geology), etc., can not be falsified, what they are wanting in the case of the Bible is more than correlation:

*** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Correlation \Cor`re*la"tion\ (-l?"sh?n), n. [LL. correlatio; L.
cor- + relatio: cf. F. corr['e]lation. Cf. {Correlation}.]
Reciprocal relation; corresponding similarity or parallelism
of relation or law; capacity of being converted into, or of
giving place to, one another, under certain conditions; as,
the correlation of forces, or of zymotic diseases.
[1913 Webster]

They are wanting God to repeat the process again in order to compare current claims which would take going back in time, etc. Yet there are no conditions under which we could do the same with this thread, a geological claim, etc. We become content with correlation, which is fine as long as these standards can be applied all the way around and unfair standards are not applied metaphysical claims which is why those standards are "useless".

Though I don't perceive that it is limited to the "scientific community," it seems we are in agreement about how attempted communications fail.

Agreed, I just wanted to keep it in the context of the current conversation.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria