Clifford’s thesis: Is it wrong always,everywhere,and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
I’m going to have to agree with Clifford on his thesis because this makes a lot of sense to me. I feel like if someone is going to have a belief for something then they should be ready to to show proof and have evidence. For example if i was waiting for one of my classes to start at school and one of my classmates I don’t trust says that class is canceled, I’m going to want to see proof/evidence, by a note on the door, email,something that is going to make me believe in the truth. The fallacies that i see in Clifford’s reasoning in which he is trying to to prove would be considered fallacies of presumption.
Clifford’s argument : 1) “all beliefs influence action in one way or another.” What i believe that he is trying to say is that no matter what your beliefs are, if they have evidence, or not if they are important or unimportant , he’s saying that it is going to start some type of commotion.
2)”Actions based on unjustified beliefs either cause harm directly , or they promote credulity which results in broad social ills.” In Clifford’s argument when he talking about he’s also trying to say that if a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future.
3)”Therefore it is always wrong to hold unjustified beliefs.” He’s just saying that it will never be the right idea to belief in something that you don’t actually know for a fact is true or not because it lacks evidence.