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.

Outlines

00:00

🧬 Vaccines and Epistemic Responsibility

This paragraph introduces the concept of epistemic responsibility in the context of vaccination. It discusses the historical eradication of diseases like measles due to widespread vaccination and the resurgence of these diseases due to a discredited study linking vaccines to autism. The paragraph emphasizes the danger of holding beliefs without scientific evidence and introduces the philosophical debate around the responsibilities we have regarding our beliefs. It touches on the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of religion, and ethics, and the potential harm caused by the spread of such beliefs, using the example of sexist beliefs and their subtle influence.

05:01

🚢 W.K. Clifford and the Ethics of Belief

This paragraph delves into the philosophy of W.K. Clifford, a 19th-century mathematician and philosopher who advocated for epistemic responsibility. Clifford argued that it is wrong to hold beliefs without sufficient evidence, using the analogy of a ship owner who believes his ship is seaworthy despite evidence to the contrary, leading to tragedy. The paragraph explores Clifford's assertion that beliefs are never private and can influence actions and perceptions, even if unspoken. It also addresses the potential for harm in beliefs lacking evidence, such as sexist beliefs, and the moral obligation to refrain from beliefs without evidence until they are investigated.

🤔 The Pop Quiz Paradox and Belief Consequences

The paragraph presents a thought experiment involving a pop quiz to illustrate the potential consequences of irresponsible beliefs. It uses the example of a student who rationalizes that a surprise quiz is impossible, leading to a lack of preparation. The paragraph highlights how such beliefs can be damaging not only to others but also to oneself. It emphasizes the importance of epistemic responsibility and the potential for beliefs to affect one's life, setting the stage for further discussion on the moral implications of holding beliefs without evidence.

🌟 William James on Faith and Belief

This paragraph contrasts W.K. Clifford's stance with that of William James, a 19th-century American philosopher who challenged the idea that it is immoral to believe in something without evidence. James, acknowledging his own belief in God despite a lack of proof, argues for the moral permissibility of holding certain beliefs under specific conditions. He introduces the concepts of live, forced, and momentous options to determine the moral defensibility of beliefs. James contends that religious belief meets these criteria, thus justifying faith in God even in the absence of evidence. The paragraph concludes with the philosophical dilemma of applying James' argument to other beliefs, such as anti-vaccination, and the ongoing challenge of addressing baseless beliefs intelligently.

Keywords

💡Epistemic Responsibility

Epistemic responsibility refers to the obligation one has regarding the beliefs they hold. It is the duty to ensure that one's beliefs are based on sufficient evidence and are not formed recklessly. In the video, this concept is central as it discusses the moral implications of holding beliefs without proper evidence, such as anti-vaxxer views or climate change denial. The script uses the example of a ship owner who believes his ship is seaworthy without sufficient evidence, leading to disaster, to illustrate the harm that can result from such irresponsible beliefs.

💡Vaccinations

Vaccinations are medical procedures in which a person is given a vaccine to prevent a specific infectious disease. The script discusses the historical context where vaccines were widely accepted and how diseases like measles were nearly eradicated due to widespread vaccination. However, the mention of a discredited study linking vaccines to autism led to a subset of parents refusing vaccinations, resulting in the resurgence of preventable diseases. This example is used to highlight the consequences of epistemic irresponsibility.

💡Anti-vaxxers

Anti-vaxxers are individuals who oppose vaccination, often due to misconceptions or misinformation. The video script mentions anti-vaxxers as an example of people holding beliefs without scientific evidence, which can lead to negative societal impacts, such as the re-emergence of diseases that were previously controlled through vaccination programs.

💡Conspiracy Theorists

Conspiracy theorists are individuals who believe in explanations of events or situations that invoke conspiracy, often without credible evidence. In the context of the video, conspiracy theorists are cited as an example of those who hold beliefs without evidence, which can lead to the spread of misinformation and potentially harmful consequences.

💡W.K. Clifford

W.K. Clifford was a 19th-century English mathematician and philosopher who was a proponent of epistemic responsibility. The script references Clifford's assertion that it is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence, using his parable of the ship owner to argue that believing without evidence is morally and epistemically wrong, regardless of whether harm actually occurs.

💡Evidence

Evidence, in the context of the video, refers to the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. The video emphasizes the importance of having sufficient evidence to support one's beliefs, as lacking evidence can lead to irresponsible and potentially harmful beliefs, as seen in the case of anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.

💡Belief

A belief, as discussed in the video, is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without proof. The video explores the concept of belief in relation to epistemic responsibility, arguing that beliefs should be formed on the basis of evidence. It contrasts irresponsible beliefs, which can be harmful, with responsible beliefs that are grounded in evidence.

💡Philosophy of Religion

The philosophy of religion is a sub-discipline of philosophy that examines the philosophical questions concerning the nature of religion, including the existence of God. The video touches on this when discussing the belief in God as an example of a belief that some, like William James, argue can be held without empirical evidence but with moral justification.

💡Ethics

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles, considering what is right and wrong and how we ought to act. In the video, ethics is intertwined with the concept of epistemic responsibility, suggesting that how we form and hold our beliefs has moral implications, especially when those beliefs can affect the well-being of others.

💡William James

William James was a 19th-century American philosopher and psychologist who is mentioned in the video for his counterargument to W.K. Clifford's views on belief and evidence. James proposed that certain beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, can be held morally even without empirical evidence, given that they meet certain criteria such as being a live, forced, and momentous option.

💡Blind Faith

Blind faith refers to belief without evidence or reason. The video discusses Clifford's view that blind faith is epistemically and morally wrong, as it leads to an unexamined life and can cause harm by ignoring other facts and arguments. This concept is contrasted with James's argument that certain beliefs, like religious faith, can be held morally despite lacking empirical evidence.

Highlights

Vaccinations were nearly universal in the U.S. until a discredited study in 1998 linked them to autism, leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases.

The concept of epistemic responsibility is introduced as a philosophical obligation regarding our beliefs.

Epistemic responsibility is a multifaceted area of philosophy, intersecting with epistemology, philosophy of religion, and ethics.

The world is filled with people holding beliefs without evidence, such as anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers.

Philosophers have developed responses to the phenomenon of holding beliefs without evidence over the past 200 years.

W.K. Clifford is highlighted as a proponent of epistemic responsibility, arguing against believing on insufficient evidence.

Clifford's famous assertion that it is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence is discussed.

The story of a ship owner who believed his ship was seaworthy without evidence, leading to tragedy, is used as an example by Clifford.

Clifford argues that even without harm, accepting a belief without evidence is morally and epistemically wrong.

The idea that beliefs are not private and can influence others is presented by Clifford.

Clifford's critique extends to religious beliefs, which he considers epistemically irresponsible due to lack of proof.

William James counters Clifford's view, arguing that some beliefs, like in God, can be morally held despite insufficient evidence.

James introduces the concept of 'live', 'forced', and 'momentous' options to determine the moral defensibility of beliefs.

James argues that religious belief meets the criteria of being a live, forced, and momentous option, justifying belief without evidence.

The paradox is highlighted that if religious belief is justified without evidence, then so might be anti-vaccination beliefs.

Philosophy's role in helping to argue against baseless beliefs intelligently is acknowledged.

The episode concludes with a teaser for the next discussion on the possibility of 'gambling our way to belief in God'.

The episode is sponsored by Squarespace, which offers website creation tools for various needs.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios, promoting other educational shows.

The production details of the episode, including the studio and team involved, are provided.

Transcripts

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

For generations, just about everybody in the United States got vaccinations.

And I’m sure there will be no conversation about this in the comments.

And as a result, diseases like measles were all but eradicated.

But in 1998, a study published in a scientific journal linked vaccines with autism.

Even though that study was later discredited, ever since then,

a small but vocal subset of parents have refused to vaccinate their kids.

Now, measles are back, as is whooping cough, mumps, and other diseases that were nearly wiped out.

Children’s lives are being endangered because some parents are acting on beliefs that have

no scientific evidence to support them.

So, why am I talking about this on Crash Course Philosophy?

Normally, when we talk about responsibility, we’re talking about things that you do.

But in philosophy, we sometimes face other obligations.

Some philosophers have argued that we all have epistemic responsibility –

that is, responsibility we have regarding our beliefs.

Epistemic responsibility is an especially interesting area of philosophy

because it’s where many of its sub-disciplines overlap –

where epistemology brushes up against philosophy of religion, which bumps into ethics.

And philosophers might argue that we live in a world that could probably use a lot more epistemic responsibility –

or at least, more people who understand what it is.

Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists.

The world is full of people who hold beliefs without any evidence.

And not only that, they – like most of us – encourage others to share their beliefs.

But over the past 200 years or so, philosophers have developed some pretty compelling responses to this phenomenon.

A few thinkers have come up with useful ways of thinking about the beliefs we have,

and the harm they can cause, and what responsibilities go along with having them.

Meanwhile, others have argued that we can sometimes hold beliefs without any proof.

Not about vaccines, or global warming, or the moon landing – but about God.

[Theme Music]

W.K. Clifford lived in England in the mid-1800s, where the only vaccine that existed was for smallpox,

and even that earned its share of scorn and ridicule at the time.

But Clifford, who was both a mathematician and a philosopher,

would probably have some very strong opinions about today’s anti-vaxxers.

Because Clifford was one of the leading proponents of epistemic responsibility of his time.

He most famously, and bluntly, put it this way:

“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

And instead of using vaccinations as an example, Clifford told the story of a ship owner.

He said, suppose there was a guy who owned a ship that he knew was old and decrepit and hadn’t been inspected in a long time.

That ship was scheduled to make a transatlantic voyage, and the owner worried that it might not make it.

But, overhauling the ship would be pricey and time-consuming.

In time, the owner talked himself into believing that the ship was seaworthy.

The ship set sail. Then it sank. And hundreds of people drowned.

But, the owner? He collected insurance money from his loss, and no one blamed him for the tragedy.

Now, most people would agree that the shipowner was responsible for the deaths of the ship’s passengers.

But Clifford went even further.

He argued that the owner would have been guilty even if the ship managed to make the trip safely.

Because: He was guilty of accepting a belief without sufficient evidence,

and whether that actually leads to harm or not, he has still done wrong, epistemically and morally.

Now, you might argue, “Don’t I have the right to believe whatever I want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone?”

Yeah, good question. Clifford argued that there’s no such thing as a private belief.

Because: We all talk about our beliefs – some of us do it a lot – and it causes our beliefs to spread.

But even if you never vocalize a belief, it still influences the way you act and the way others perceive you.

So in this way, a belief can spread subtly, insidiously, without a word being spoken.

Think about other kinds of beliefs that lack evidence, for example sexist beliefs.

Imagine a modern day sexist in an American university.

Most of these people are gonna know that actually expressing their sexist views isn't going to fly.

But a sexist’s beliefs, even if they’re never overtly stated,

tend to show through in the ways they interact with women and speak of them.

So, no matter what: You know them and you know their views and you know their views subtly influence others,

particularly if they’re a person in position of authority or respect.

Since our views always have the potential to harm others, W. K. Clifford argued that

we have an epistemic responsibility only to believe things for which we have evidence.

And if you don’t have evidence, you’re morally obligated to refrain from the belief.

Basically, you should withhold judgment until you investigate the situation.

Let’s head over to the Thought Bubble to explore this more with some Flash Philosophy.

It’s Tuesday, and your teacher tells you that, this week, there will be a pop quiz.

And she’s nice enough to even define for you what she means by this:

A pop quiz, she says, is a quiz that you can’t know is coming in advance.

You reason, however, that such a quiz is impossible, so you never study for it.

Here’s your reasoning:

The quiz can’t be on Friday, because if Wednesday and Thursday go by with no quiz,

then you would know it was coming on Friday, since that would be the last possible day. So Friday’s out.

But that means it can’t be on Thursday either, because

by the end of class on Wednesday, you would know the quiz would be happening the next day.

But since it can’t be on Thursday or Friday, it also can’t be on Wednesday, because that’s the only day left –

so you would know in advance that it was coming.

Now, any amount of rationalization that will convince you that you don't have to study might sound pretty sweet.

But, in this case, you’re probably going to regret it.

Because, after all, if your teacher tells you there’s going to be a quiz, chances are, there is going to be a quiz.

The fact that you’ve constructed a brilliant mind game that proves that it won’t, isn’t going to make that quiz not happen.

So, beliefs about vaccines and shipworthiness may be irresponsible because of the danger they pose to others,

but this case demonstrates that irresponsible beliefs can be damaging to you, as well.

Thanks,Thought Bubble! Clifford made a pretty convincing case for epistemic responsibility.

And it’s worth pointing out that his beef wasn’t only with ship owners or kids who didn’t study.

One thing his arguments were meant to show is that religious belief is epistemically irresponsible.

Belief in a God whose existence can’t be proven was simply “blind faith,” he said.

And blind faith leads a person to ignore other facts and arguments, causing them to live an unexamined,

unthoughtful life that Clifford described as “one long sin against mankind.”

Unsurprisingly, this idea was met with some counterarguments.

Let’s hear from one of his interlocutors:

19th century American philosopher and psychologist William James took issue with

Clifford’s thesis that it is immoral to believe something with insufficient evidence.

James acknowledged that one of his beliefs that was most important to him – his belief in God – lacked evidence.

So he set out to demonstrate that certain beliefs can be held, morally,

even if there’s nothing you can really point to, to back them up.

Now, James recognized that it would be ridiculous to say it’s ok to believe in just anything you wanted.

So he narrowed down his claim to argue that, when you adopt a belief, you have options.

And the nature of those options can basically determine the moral defensibility of the beliefs you end up holding.

Specifically, he said that the options you face when choosing a belief could be either live or dead;

forced or unforced; And momentous or trivial.

You face a live option when you’re considering a belief that you could actually see yourself having.

For instance, maybe you’ve never had a pumpkin spice latte.

But you love pumpkin, and you love lattes, and you love spice,

so you hypothesize that you would enjoy a pumpkin spice latte.

That’s a live option for you – because you can imagine yourself believing that you’d like a pumpkin spice latte.

On the other hand, you probably can’t even entertain the possibility that you’d enjoy,

like, a dog food spice latte.

Try as you might, you just can’t imagine accepting that option as an actual belief.

So, that’s a dead option to you.

Now, a forced option is one in which, whatever you do, you’ve made a choice. You can’t not choose.

‘Stay in or go out,’ is a good example of a forced option.

You have to do one or the other; you can’t wait and decide later.

Because, as you wait to decide, you’ve stayed in and thus, you have made your choice.

But unforced options are those where you can just opt out of choosing.

If I let you pick peanut butter or ham and cheese, you can always just decide to have neither.

So your choice is an unforced option.

A momentous option is one that, if you choose it, stands the chance of radically changing your life for the better.

Accepting an opportunity to go to the International Space Station, for example, could be momentous.

But the option to have French fries with your burger would be trivial –

eat them, don’t eat them, either way – not gonna make a huge difference in your life.

Now, James said that, if you’re considering whether to believe something for which there’s not sufficient evidence,

it’s permissible to still believe it – so long as it’s a live, forced, and momentous option.

And religious belief just happens to fill all of those criteria.

First, James said, believing in God is a live option for himself and a whole lot of other people.

He also argued that religious belief is a forced option.

That’s because he didn’t buy the idea that agnosticism was really a thing.

He figured that withholding judgment is the same as not believing – so you either believe in God, or you don’t.

Finally, James thought religious belief is momentous – it has the possibility to greatly improve your life.

So, he concluded that we are justified in believing in God in the absence of evidence through faith alone.

The problem is, if we’re justified in believing in God in the absence of evidence,

then we’re also justified in believing that it’s ok not to vaccinate our kids.

Because that, too, is an option that can be described as live, forced, and momentous.

So unfortunately, philosophy can’t just make all of the baseless beliefs in the world go away.

But it can help you argue against those ideas intelligently.

Today we have learned about epistemic responsibility.

Clifford says it is always wrong to believe without sufficient evidence,

but James says there are some exceptions – namely, religious belief.

Next time we will consider whether we can gamble our way to belief in God – stay tuned!

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs or online stores for you and for your ideas.

Websites look professionally designed regardless of skill level, no coding required.

Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel to check out amazing shows

like Brain Craft, PBS Game/Show, and Gross Science.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.