Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and science
Ethics and science
Difference between the process of induction and deduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics and science
As a TOK student, I have been taught to question everything around me, rather than blindly believe anything I am told. For this reason, I have learned to ask for evidence for many of the concepts that my teachers, family members and friends tell me about. However, this is usually in topics taught in the educational system such as mathematics and the natural sciences, where evidence and reason are necessary in order to conclude if an answer or theory is correct/ reasonable. In more complex topics such as religion, which relies mainly on faith, emotion and beliefs, evidence plays a very different and often minimal role. This is also often the case with ethics where our morals, and our views of other people are based upon intuition and Perception rather than evidence.
In the area of knowledge of mathematics, language allows us to generalize words, equations and ideas to make knowledge in math universal, rather than dependent on opinion person to person, and therefore relies on facts in order for theories to be formulated. Mathematics greatly requires the use of reason and logic. Reason is a way of knowing, which by the use of known facts and logic, extends our knowledge. There are two forms of logic in reasoning: deductive and inductive. Induction overall is about the human need to look for patterns in observations over time, such as in addition. Because in the past 1+2 has always equaled 3, we expect this to be the case every time we add these numbers together. If someone argued that 1+2 is 6, I would be skeptical and require evidence, as it would be against the ideas that were previously instilled me throughout my education that 1+2= 3. I would require valid evidence for me to go against my beliefs and against what I would conside...
... middle of paper ...
...at is not really there, affecting not only our perception of the world overall, but also of individuals.
In conclusion, the extent to which we need evidence to support our beliefs depends on which area of knowledge being discussed, as those known for their objectivity and fact-based theories such as science and math require evidence to support the beliefs of individuals to a large extent, while those such as religion and art require little evidence as they are based upon our individual sense perception and faith, and therefore because it is not based upon reason but emotion does not need evidence to be justified, or to be justified at all. In these areas of knowledge, it is only to see how valid a belief is that that evidence is necessary.
We do not need evidence to support our own beliefs, we need evidence to make our opinions and beliefs valid to other people.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his
When all the evidence is noted (and there is even more beyond that which is stated here), one can not ignore the overwhelming presence of a
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
beliefs using logic and science. If you do, there is no way to prove the
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
... and faith are not based solely on empirical evidence and absolute proof. It is the will to believe, the desire to see miracles that allows the faithful, to believe in the existence of miracles, not on any kind of sufficient evidence but on the belief that miracles can happen. Rather than Hume’s premise that a wise man proportions his belief in response to the eviddence, maybe a wise man would be better off, tempering his need for empirical evidence against his faith and his will to belief.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
We need justification for our beliefs. The idea is that where do these justifications come from. Are they based on good reasoning, evidence, personal experiences, or etc.? The broader question is whether justification is something internal or external? I believe one should be externalist about justification.
...d the evidence that you have used. Weigh up the two (or more) sides of the argument.
3.Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
Charles Kimball’s book When Religion Becomes Evil states, “It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history.” (Kimball 1). According to Kimball, an assurance to rite for needing proving, for no evidence support attempted. If one challenges to prove it, one will need recognizable evidence from other institutional forces over the course of study with a concept of religion.
Evidence is a large portion of proving the paranormal, as there are very sizeable amounts of it. Unfortunately, many pieces of evidence are either falsified or easily debunked. However, amongst these, there is still a plethora of very real and reliable information. For example, cases of the mind body connection (the connections of the mind being more powerful than the body) have been recorded multiple times in the past.