Clifford's Beliefs On Insufficient Evidence

In short, Clifford proposes that it is morally wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He supports his argument by claiming that beliefs upon insufficient evidence are always harmful, and that holding unjust beliefs could make one, and even society, credulous. There are several appealing reasons as to why someone would accept Clifford’s position. Clifford’s argument suggests his support for evidentialism, which is the view that one’s beliefs need to be guided and constrained by evidence. Examples of people who could be evidentialists are scientists, skeptics, lawyers, or critical thinkers. Scientists could accept Clifford’s position because they rely on empirical evidence, experimentation, and observation to form hypotheses and
The reasons why someone would accept this position are because they rely on sufficient evidence to form their beliefs, and they accept that their beliefs have significant impacts on other people and society. As Clifford said, “Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence” (154). His official argument can be laid out in the following form: P1: When our beliefs have a significant impact on other people, it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence. P2: Our beliefs have a significant impact on other people. C: Therefore, it is always wrong to believe in insufficient evidence. As stated, one of Clifford’s premise is that when our beliefs have a significant impact on other people, it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence. The main reason that one might believe in this premise is based around the social function of belief and how beliefs affect society. Someone may agree with Clifford when he says that “Our lives are guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes”