Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The social harm from normalized under-evidenced belief ex... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A hypothesis that is part of a genuine option and is intellectually open may be believed even in the absence of sufficient evidence

    The social harm from normalized under-evidenced belief extends beyond the individual believer, violating duties Clifford grounds in epistemic ethics.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Epistemically careless beliefs propagate through social networks, degrading collective decision-making on shared problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Normalized under-evidenced belief erodes institutional trust and creates cascading harms when others rely on false information.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Individuals have duties to others grounded in epistemic integrity, not just personal intellectual honesty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Clifford's standard conflates moral responsibility for belief adoption with responsibility for all downstream social effects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Determining what counts as 'sufficient evidence' varies rationally across contexts; universal standards unfairly constrain belief-formation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Social harm from false belief is often traceable to institutional failure, not individual epistemic vice, yet Clifford blames individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A hypothesis that is part of a genuine option and is intellectually open may be ...Clifford's standard conflates moral responsibility for belief adoption with resp...Determining what counts as 'sufficient evidence' varies rationally across contex...Epistemically careless beliefs propagate through social networks, degrading coll...
    +3 moreShow less
    Individuals have duties to others grounded in epistemic integrity, not just pers...Normalized under-evidenced belief erodes institutional trust and creates cascadi...Social harm from false belief is often traceable to institutional failure, not i...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit