我們時刻都會相信很多東西：從「我面前有部電腦」，到「民主社會比其他政制優勝」。
我們說理性者當根據充分證據相信，然而我們有沒道德責任如此做？
(也就是說，一個人不根據充分證據相信，至少有時是不道德的。)
以下是本人在讀哲學碩士「科學與理性思考」課程時，期末論文的一部份的答案，評論以上問題。
本文主要評William Clifford 1877年的文章"Ethics of Belief"[1]和William James 1896年的文章"The Will to Believe"[2]，他們有十分兩極的立場。
本文只有英文版本。
======================================================================問題：
"4. According to William Clifford, “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence.” Do you agree with Clifford’s principle? Why or why not?
Do you think that William James’ responses in “The Will to Believe” are reasonable and sound?
Why or why not?"
======================================================================
答案：
In this essay, I will evaluate William Clifford’s evidentialism [1] and William James’ opposition [2]. I shall state why they are both erroneous, then I will propose a more moderate form of evidentialism.
1. On Clifford’s Arguments
1.1 Strengths of Clifford’s Arguments
Clifford claimed that “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” (Clifford’s Principle) [1]
Clifford argued for his principle from the
consequences of belief. He said that “no
one man’s belief is in any case a private matter”, they all are “stored up for the guidance of the future”.
[1] He thought that, not only beliefs affect immediate actions, but also contribute to our habits of forming belief. Therefore we have responsibility to make
sure our beliefs are true.
In the story of the ship owner, Clifford stressed that even if the ship did return safe, its owner is still guilty. He argued this from the possible bad consequences of the habit of believing based on insufficient evidence. Just like one is guilty for careless driving, though we may not intentionally harm people, if we know the possible bad consequences, we are still guilty for taking our beliefs too lightly.
1.2 Weaknesses in Clifford’s Arguments
The first problem of Clifford’s Principle is that it
is too demanding to be useful in guidance. In Clifford’s Principle, anyone is required to seek sufficient
evidence on anything.
Even to other people Clifford’s Principle is still
too demanding. For our lives will be paralyzed if we require our every belief
to be based on sufficient evidence. E. g. At supermarket, I decide to buy some
milk because I remember that my home has run out of it; if I demand for sufficient
evidence, I may need to go home and double-check. We simply do not have time to
acquire sufficient evidence for every little thing; doing so is impractical.
The Clifford’s Principle is also theoretically
impossible. To demand sufficient evidence for a belief needs to presume another
belief. E. g. believing that it has just rained because the street is wet,
requires the belief that when it rains, it always makes the floor wet. If we
continue to ask for sufficient evidence for the presumed beliefs, then either
we are caught in an infinite regress, or at some point we cannot find evidence
for some beliefs. Philosopher Ferdinand Schiller suggested that in science
there inevitably are beliefs that cannot be verified by evidence such as
uniformity of nature and causality. [7]
2. On James’ Arguments
2.1 Strengths of James’ Arguments
William James provided four (supposedly) jointly
sufficient conditions under which we are justified to believe without evidence:
(1) there is no evidence for or against the proposition; the option is (2)
living (we are willing to believe), (3) forced, and (4) momentous (important).
(A) Hypothesis
venturing (evidence available only after we believe in it)
(B) Self-fulfilling
beliefs (the belief is true if we believe in them)
2.2 Weaknesses in James’ Arguments
While condition (1) and (3) may be sufficient to
justify some cases of violating evidentialism, other conditions (living,
momentous) seem unnecessary or even irrational. For it is not clear what counts
as “living” options. It seems arbitrary and irrational to dismiss a proposition
simply from our own feeling or the time we live in. (James referred to Greek
mythology as a “dead” option)
3. A
Moderate Evidentialism
I have reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments
of Clifford and James on ethics of belief. Clifford’s Principle is too
demanding and is impossible practically and theoretically; James’ conditions
are questionable and have twisted the meaning of epistemological belief. I
proposed a moderate version of evidentialism: we should always try to believe
on sufficient evidence when the issue is significant and is not urgent.
Q4: (Ethics of Belief)
https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf
http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~jp6372me/THE%20WILL%20TO%20BELIEVE%20.pdf
今天學了一個有趣的理論叫「逆向定律」The Backwards Law。
常道：人們追求快樂。不快樂，是因自己之現狀不如期望；不快樂，就會去追求，希望因此而快樂。但快樂不是一個東西，它是一個狀態。現代社會中，期望總高於實際；在永恒的追求之中，我們已經不快樂。所以快樂的方法，反而是放棄去追求；所謂知足，其實是一種向內的放下。
//人皆取實，己獨取虛，無藏也故有餘，巋然而有餘。其行身也，徐而不費，無為也而笑巧。人皆求福，己獨曲全，曰：「苟免於咎。」// 莊子。天下5
以下是我在一個中國哲學課程的一篇習作，引《莊子。內篇》數段闡明其思想核心。
選取的段落：
1. 大知閑閑，小知閒閒；大言炎炎，小言詹詹。其寐也魂交，其覺也形開，與接為搆，日以心鬥。縵者，窖者，密者。小恐惴惴，大恐縵縵。其發若機栝，其司是非之謂也；其留如詛盟，其守勝之謂也；其殺若秋冬，以言其日消也；其溺之所為之，不可使復之也；其厭也如緘，以言其老洫也；近死之心，莫使復陽也。喜怒哀樂，慮嘆變慹，姚佚啟態；樂出虛，蒸成菌。日夜相代乎前，而莫知其所萌。已乎，已乎！旦暮得此，其所由以生乎！（〈齊物論〉）
2. 物无非彼，物无非是。自彼則不見，自知則知之。故曰彼出於是，是亦因彼。彼是方生之說也，雖然，方生方死，方死方生；方可方不可，方不可方可；因是因非，因非因是。是以聖人不由，而照之於天，亦因是也。是亦彼也，彼亦是也。彼亦一是非，此亦一是非。果且有彼是乎哉？果且無彼是乎哉？彼是莫得其偶，謂之道樞。樞始得其環中，以應无窮。是亦一无窮。非亦一无窮也，故曰莫若以明。（〈齊物論〉）
3. 庖丁釋刀對曰：「臣之所好者道也，進乎技矣。始臣之解牛之時，所見无非〔全〕牛者。三年之後，未嘗見全牛也。方今之時，臣以神遇而不以目視，官知止而神欲行。依乎天理，批大卻，導大窾，因其固然。技經肯綮之未嘗，而況大軱乎！良庖歲更刀，割也；族庖月更刀，折也。今臣之刀十九年矣，所解數千牛矣，而刀刃若新發於硎。彼節者有閒，而刀刃者無厚；以無厚入有閒，恢恢乎其於遊刃必有餘地矣。是以十九年而刀刃若新發於硎。雖然，每至於族，吾見其難為，怵然為戒，視為止，行為遲。動刀甚微，謋然已解，如土委地。提刀而立，為之四顧，為之躊躇滿志，善刀而藏之。」文惠君曰：「善哉！吾聞庖丁之言，得養生焉。」（〈養生主〉）
4. 顏回曰：「吾无以進矣，敢問其方。」仲尼曰：「齋，吾將語若！有〔心〕而為之，其易邪？易之者，皞天不宜。」顏回曰：「回之家貧，唯不飲酒不茹葷者數月矣。如此，則可以為齋乎？」曰：「是祭祀之齋，非心齋也。」回曰：「敢問心齋。」仲尼曰：「若一志，无聽之以耳而聽之以心，无聽之以心而聽之以氣！聽止於耳，心止於符。氣也者，虛而待物者也。唯道集虛。虛者，心齋也。」顏回曰：「回之未始得使，實有回也；得使之也，未始有回也；可謂虛乎？」夫子曰：「盡矣。吾語若！若能入遊其樊而無感其名，入則鳴，不入則止。無門無毒，一宅而寓於不得已，則幾矣。絕跡易，無行地難。為人使易以偽，為天使難以偽。聞以有翼飛者矣，未聞以无翼飛者也；聞以有知知者矣，未聞以無知知者也。瞻彼闋者，虛室生白，吉祥止止。夫且不止，是之謂坐馳。夫徇耳目內通而外於心知，鬼神將來舍，而況人乎！是萬物之化也，禹舜之所紐也，伏羲几蘧之所行終，而況散焉者乎！」（〈人間世〉）
