Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theories, & Epistemic Responsibility: Crash Course Philosophy #14

Summary

This Crash Course Philosophy episode delves into epistemic responsibility, the moral duty to base beliefs on sufficient evidence. It critiques anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers for holding beliefs without scientific backing. The video contrasts W.K. Clifford's stance that believing without evidence is always wrong with William James's argument for the moral acceptability of religious faith despite a lack of proof. The discussion highlights the philosophical debate on when it's permissible to hold beliefs without evidence and the potential harm of such beliefs to society.

Takeaways

• 😷 Vaccinations were once universally accepted in the U.S., leading to the near-eradication of diseases like measles, but a discredited study linking vaccines to autism has led to a resurgence of these diseases due to a subset of anti-vaxxers.
• 🤔 The concept of epistemic responsibility is introduced, emphasizing our duty to hold beliefs based on evidence and the potential harm of spreading unfounded beliefs.
• 📚 Epistemic responsibility is a cross-disciplinary area of philosophy that intersects with epistemology, philosophy of religion, and ethics.
• 🌐 The script highlights the prevalence of baseless beliefs in society, such as anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and conspiracy theorists, and the need for a better understanding of epistemic responsibility.
• 📘 W.K. Clifford's stance on epistemic responsibility is presented, asserting that it is always wrong to believe in something without sufficient evidence, using the metaphor of a ship owner who believes his ship is seaworthy without proper inspection.
• 🚢 Clifford argues that the ship owner would be morally guilty even if the ship did not sink, emphasizing that the act of believing without evidence is inherently wrong.
• 🗣️ The idea that beliefs are not private is discussed, as they can influence actions and perceptions, potentially causing harm even if unspoken.
• 🙅‍♂️ Clifford contends that we have a moral obligation to only believe in things for which we have evidence, advocating for withholding judgment until proper investigation.
• 🤔 The script presents a hypothetical scenario about a pop quiz to illustrate the dangers of irresponsible beliefs, even when they seem logical or convenient.
• 🧐 William James counters Clifford's view, arguing that certain beliefs, particularly religious ones, can be morally held even without evidence, under specific conditions.
• 🛑 James introduces the concept of 'live, forced, and momentous' options to justify holding beliefs without evidence, suggesting that religious belief meets these criteria.
• 💡 The episode concludes by acknowledging the complexity of epistemic responsibility and the ongoing philosophical debate about when it is permissible to hold beliefs without evidence.

Q & A

What is the main topic discussed in the Crash Course Philosophy video script?

The main topic discussed is epistemic responsibility, which is the responsibility we have regarding our beliefs, and how it overlaps with philosophy of religion and ethics.

What event in 1998 sparked controversy about vaccinations in the United States?

A study published in a scientific journal in 1998 falsely linked vaccines with autism, leading to a subset of parents refusing to vaccinate their children, despite the study being later discredited.

What is the concept of epistemic responsibility as discussed in the script?

Epistemic responsibility refers to the obligation to hold beliefs that are supported by sufficient evidence and to refrain from believing in things without proof.

Who is W.K. Clifford, and what was his stance on beliefs and evidence?

W.K. Clifford was a 19th-century mathematician and philosopher who argued that it is always wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence, emphasizing the moral and epistemic responsibility in holding beliefs.

What example did W.K. Clifford use to illustrate the dangers of believing without sufficient evidence?

Clifford used the example of a ship owner who, despite knowing his ship was old and decrepit, convinced himself it was seaworthy, leading to the ship sinking and the loss of many lives.

How does Clifford argue against the idea of private beliefs?

Clifford argued that there is no such thing as a private belief because beliefs, even if not vocalized, influence actions and perceptions, potentially spreading subtly and causing harm.

What is the 'Thought Bubble' segment in the script, and what does it illustrate?

The 'Thought Bubble' segment is a hypothetical scenario where a student rationalizes not studying for a pop quiz, illustrating how irresponsible beliefs can be damaging to oneself.

Who is William James, and how does he counter Clifford's view on epistemic responsibility?

William James was a 19th-century American philosopher and psychologist who disagreed with Clifford's thesis, arguing that certain beliefs, like religious beliefs in God, can be held morally even without sufficient evidence.

What criteria does James propose for morally defensible beliefs without evidence?

James proposed that beliefs without evidence can be morally defensible if they are live, forced, and momentous options, meaning they are conceivable, inescapable choices that could significantly impact one's life.

What is the philosophical dilemma presented by James' view on religious belief and its relation to other beliefs lacking evidence?

The dilemma is that if we accept James' view that religious belief can be justified without evidence, it could also justify other baseless beliefs, such as not vaccinating children, which can be harmful.

How does the script suggest philosophy can help with beliefs lacking evidence?

The script suggests that while philosophy may not eliminate all baseless beliefs, it can provide tools to argue intelligently against such ideas and promote epistemic responsibility.