Clifford's formulation requires evidence proportional to the claim's significance, but other evidentialists permit suspension or belief when evidence genuinely balances both sides.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Clifford(as a philosopher being referenced): William Kingdon Clifford was a 19th-century philosopher who argued that it's morally wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence—basically, you shouldn't believe claims just because you want to.
Clifford's formulation(as the main position being discussed): Clifford's specific rule that says the amount of evidence you need for a belief should match how big or important the claim is—bigger claims need stronger evidence.
Evidence genuinely balances(as describing a situation where competing evidence is equal): When the reasons for and against a claim are equally strong and convincing, so you can't tell which side is right.
Evidentialist / Evidentialism(as the broader philosophical position being referenced): A philosophy about belief that says you should only believe things if you have good evidence for them; different evidentialists disagree about how strict this rule should be.

Based on where you are in your exploration