week 9 philosophy - the ethics of belief, scepticism, and conspiracy theories

what is a descriptive claim?

a statement describing how things are, not how they should be

• ex: the sky is blue

what is a normative claim?

a statement evaluating how things ought to be

• ex: people should not cheat

what are the four types of normative claims?

1. moral (right/wrong)

2. prudential (well-being, self-interest)

3. etiquettical (politeness)

4. epistemic (what one should believe)

can moral and epistemic blameworthiness come apart?

yes they can be distinct (ex: blackmail), but often entangled (ex: flat earth beliefs have both moral and epistemic consequences)

what is Clifford’s central thesis?

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

what is Clifford’s unseaworthy ship example?

a shipowner convinces himself the ship is safe without proper evidence; it sinks; Clifford argues that he is morally guilty

according the Clifford, why is the shipowner guilty even if the ship had made the journey?

right/wrong depends on how the belief was formed, not whether it happened to be true, the origin of belief matters, not its outcome 

what two faults does Clifford identify in the shipowner’s belief formation?

1. he had no right to believe on the evidence he had

2. he stifled his doubts and worked himself to certainty

what objection does Clifford consider and how does he reply?

the moral problem lies in the action (sending the ship), not in the belief

• belief and action cannot be sharply separated

• beliefs influence actions

• beliefs are never purely private

what does Clifford say about “small” or harmless beliefs?

even minor irresponsible beliefs weaken our ability to evaluate evidence; believing for unworthy reasons erodes intellectual discipline 

what is Clifford’s concluding principle?

believing without adequate evidence is always wrong because of social, moral, and epistemic consequences

what is code’s main idea?

knowing is an active, responsible practice; knowers have obligations in how they form beliefs (epistemic responsibility)

what is “responsibilist epistemology”?

an approach focusing on the knower’s character, virtues, and practices - not only on whether a belief is true or justified

how does Code challenge orthodox epistemology?

she emphasizes the agent and their practices rather than defining knowledge as simply “S knows that p”

what does Code mean by “situated knowers”?

knowers exist within social, historical, and cultural contexts; power, bias, and position shape what and how they know

what intellectual virtues does Code highlight?

carefulness, open-mindedness, intellectual courage, perseverance - core to epistemic responsibility

how is knowledge socially mediated according to Code?

through communities, trust, authority, and shared epistemic norms; knowledge is not purely individual

why doesn’t Code give strict rules for epistemic responsibility?

because epistemic practices are context-dependent, varied, and evolving

what ethical/political implications does Code identify?

failures in epistemic responsibility can perpetuate injustice, marginalization, and distorted knowledge practices 

what is the brain-in-a-vat (BIAV) argument?

1. you don’t know you’re not a brain in a vat

2. if you don’t know that, you don’t know you’re in class/tutorial

3. therefore, you don’t know you’re in class/tutorial

what type is skepticism is this?

external world skepticism - challenging whether we can know anything about the physical world

what is the “climate conspiracy” skeptical argument?

1. you don’t know the conspiracy hypothesis is false

2. if you don’t know that, you don’t know climate change is happening 

3. therefore, you don’t know anthropogenic climate change is occurring 

what is the difference between a climate skeptic and a climate denier?

• a denier claims climate change is false 

• a skeptic claims we cannot know whether it is true 

what does the idealized skeptic believe about experts?

they accept the scientific consensus exists but distrust experts due to perceived bias or groupthink

why is the conspiracy hypothesis unfalsifiable?

because all contrary evidence can be explained as “part of the conspiracy”

why can’t most people evaluate climate data directly? 

they lack scientific expertise - must rely on testimony and expert communities 

what is Worsnip’s key rebuttal to the skeptic?

“equal fit with the evidence does not imply equal credibility,” hypotheses can be equally consistent with data but differ drastically in plausibility

what makes the conspiracy hypothesis less credible?

1. it lacks simplicity (too many assumptions)

2. it is unfalsifiable (bad scientific practice)

3. it posits massive, coordinated deception (low probability)

4. scientific institutions are generally trustworthy

why is simplicity important?

theories requiring fewer assumptions are more credible (Occam’s razor)

why is falsifiability important?

a scientific theory must be testable in principle; conspiracy theories rule out any potential counter evidence

what role does trust play in evaluating expert testimony?

because individuals cannot verify all evidence first-hand, trust in reliable epistemic communities is crucial