Is it wrong to believe without sufficient evidence? (Venue: Caffè Nero)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

The Cambridge Town and Gown race is on this Sunday and may affect transport, parking, etc, for those coming from further afield.

The current weather forecast is for rain this Sunday so we shall default to our indoor venues. But things may improve so keep a look out for changes before you leave home.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Is it wrong to believe without sufficient evidence?

This week's topic has been prepared by Duncan.

Some people claim: “You have a right to your opinion.” But is that true? May we believe whatever we want to believe? You might think that it doesn't really matter. If you believe the earth is flat, that's entirely up to you and whilst you may appear a little foolish to the rest of us, there's no harm done.

The idea of belief itself is rather tricky to pin down. One definition is: "A belief is a subjective attitude that something is true or a state of affairs is the case." But I'm sure we'll have plenty to say about this.

Although we tend to think that our beliefs are our own private business, the philosopher W.K. Clifford (1845–1879) maintained that “belief… is ours not for ourselves but for humanity” in the same way that air and water are public resources. Clifford thought that the ethical principle against believing on insufficient evidence applies to all beliefs, even those that seem unimportant.

He thought that we’re always in the process of building our own intellectual characters. Sloppy or biased reasoning, even about something like whether our favourite team is likely to win a game, puts us in danger of developing bad mental habits that will corrupt our thinking about more important things. So believing without or against the evidence always imposes unacceptable risks to ourselves and others.

But what constitutes sufficient evidence for belief? Does this mean that we must be frantically collecting evidence all the time? Not necessarily; according to Clifford, we’re always free to suspend judgment until we have enough evidence.

What does this say for certainty? Should we admit that we never have a sufficient evidential basis for our beliefs and accept that we know nothing for certain? Should we all be skeptical, all the time?

Are there some beliefs for which sufficient evidence may never be available, or at least the sort of evidence that appeals to scientists?

Do we in reality have a tacit agreement between ourselves that when we say we believe something, we all know it's subject to an acceptable degree of doubt? This implies that it's ok to believe on the basis of incomplete evidence, or at least until more evidence - for or against the belief - comes to light.

Do we agree with Clifford's ethical position? It seems that serious wrongdoing can often be traced to believing - and acting - without adequate evidence. Our strongly voiced beliefs may convince others to incorrectly hold the same belief, and act upon it.

We look forward to seeing you on Sunday but you'll just have to take my word that the event will actually take place.

--

Some background reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2022/01/28/ethics-of-belief/