While I agree, on premise, that important issues should be informed and well thought out, the idea that believing without evidence is morally wrong implies that anyone who took a risk to create...
While I agree, on premise, that important issues should be informed and well thought out, the idea that believing without evidence is morally wrong implies that anyone who took a risk to create something new when evidence did not exist yet, was morally wrong.
For example, given the ample evidence that most restaurants fail, is choosing to start a restaurant in spite of this evidence immoral?
In addition, what if the choice in spite of evidence results in behavior that is morally better? We can know, with statistics, that a particular behavior is common. We may not have evidence that acting in a different manner is more effective. For example, nonviolent protest. The earliest nonviolent protesters may not have had evidence that their protest would be more effective (I'm honestly not sure what the data says about effectiveness) but I think most people would agree that nonviolent protesting is more moral than the alternative, not immoral.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than the statement proposed here.
Does it? If no such evidence exists yet, then formulating and testing a hypothesis is required. That doesn't require belief in the hypothesis just to test it however. Attempting to rule it out...
the idea that believing without evidence is morally wrong implies that anyone who took a risk to create something new when evidence did not exist yet, was morally wrong.
Does it? If no such evidence exists yet, then formulating and testing a hypothesis is required. That doesn't require belief in the hypothesis just to test it however. Attempting to rule it out through experimentation is just a means of acquiring evidence.
There are plenty of cases in history where the evidence supported another hypothesis until an entirely new hypothesis emerged. I suppose there's some pedantry about what "belief" truly means here...
There are plenty of cases in history where the evidence supported another hypothesis until an entirely new hypothesis emerged.
I suppose there's some pedantry about what "belief" truly means here in respect to formulating and testing hypotheses. The biggest breakthroughs often happen precisely because someone believes it is a certain way (even though we try to avoid this bias in science) and therefore has the drive to thoroughly prove or disprove a belief.
However I think there's a lot of nuance to the difference between believing something and proselytizing something. There's also nuance to how influential that belief is and how it changes how you interact with the world and therefore the consequences of said belief.
In the end I think I merely take issue with the word "always" in the proposed philosophical argument. I think it can be just as strong by dropping that word, and avoid arguments designed to break apart fringe cases not necessarily aimed at what I believe is the heart of the argument.
Non-violent protest works more often than violent protest. Here's an article summarising a recent study about this.
The earliest nonviolent protesters may not have had evidence that their protest would be more effective (I'm honestly not sure what the data says about effectiveness)
Non-violent protest works more often than violent protest. Here's an article summarising a recent study about this.
While I agree, on premise, that important issues should be informed and well thought out, the idea that believing without evidence is morally wrong implies that anyone who took a risk to create something new when evidence did not exist yet, was morally wrong.
For example, given the ample evidence that most restaurants fail, is choosing to start a restaurant in spite of this evidence immoral?
In addition, what if the choice in spite of evidence results in behavior that is morally better? We can know, with statistics, that a particular behavior is common. We may not have evidence that acting in a different manner is more effective. For example, nonviolent protest. The earliest nonviolent protesters may not have had evidence that their protest would be more effective (I'm honestly not sure what the data says about effectiveness) but I think most people would agree that nonviolent protesting is more moral than the alternative, not immoral.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than the statement proposed here.
Does it? If no such evidence exists yet, then formulating and testing a hypothesis is required. That doesn't require belief in the hypothesis just to test it however. Attempting to rule it out through experimentation is just a means of acquiring evidence.
There are plenty of cases in history where the evidence supported another hypothesis until an entirely new hypothesis emerged.
I suppose there's some pedantry about what "belief" truly means here in respect to formulating and testing hypotheses. The biggest breakthroughs often happen precisely because someone believes it is a certain way (even though we try to avoid this bias in science) and therefore has the drive to thoroughly prove or disprove a belief.
However I think there's a lot of nuance to the difference between believing something and proselytizing something. There's also nuance to how influential that belief is and how it changes how you interact with the world and therefore the consequences of said belief.
In the end I think I merely take issue with the word "always" in the proposed philosophical argument. I think it can be just as strong by dropping that word, and avoid arguments designed to break apart fringe cases not necessarily aimed at what I believe is the heart of the argument.
Non-violent protest works more often than violent protest. Here's an article summarising a recent study about this.
Awesome, I suspected as such but never bothered to research it.