Quote:
Originally Posted by cih1355  Suppose someone says that he will not believe something unless there is a reason for doing so. Is he assuming evidentialism? |
Not the way you stated it. There are
some things I won't believe if I don't have a reason (or any evidence) to. Say you get charged with a horrible crime. Say I'm a juror. Say the prosecutor offers absolutely zero reasons to think you committed the crime. I therefore would not believe that you did it since I would require evidence for that belief.
Now, if someone were to say that if one were to believe
anything whatever without a reason for doing so, that would be closer to the mark.
And I use 'evidence' in this instance to mean what most epistemologists do: propositional evidence in favor (or against) a belief.
A classic statement of the evidentialist constraint is given to us by W.K. Clifford:
"To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
Well, given that statement, you can see why he titled his paper
The Ethics of Belief (emphasis added).