Blog Prompt :
Reconstruct one of his arguments (not the examples) in standard form. Then evaluate that argument for soundness and validity. What practical significance does Clifford’s thesis have? Do you see any fallacies in Clifford’s reasoning?
Premise 1: Never become overconfident in your beliefs. Premise 2: Overconfidence without supporting evidence leads to narrow mindedness. Premise 3: Narrow minded actions results in unfavorable outcomes. Conclusion: Therefore, overconfidence leads to unfavorable outcomes.
For although they had sincerely and conscientiously believed in the charges they had made, yet they had no right to believe on such evidence as was before them. Their sincere convictions, instead of being honestly earned by patient inquiring, were stolen by listening to the voice of prejudice and passion. (Page 2)
It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. (Page 4)
William Clifford’s thesis in his essay is that one shouldn’t become overconfident in our beliefs and not consider other possibilities. Our conviction in our beliefs could lead to a narrow minded mindset resulting in negative outcomes. He truly believed that the ship was safe because he had no reasons to doubt that the ship wasn’t. The came to this conclusion not because he believed the ship was safe, but because he kept reassuring himself that it was safe. “He had acquired this belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts,” is proof of his actions. Above are two examples that demonstrate overconfidence that results in unfavorable outcomes. In the first example the agitators become overconfident in their cause however they don’t have enough supporting evidence which leads to the accused being determined as innocent. As a result, the agitators are now viewed as not being trustable and honorable. The second example portrays the shipowner as having too much conviction in one’s belief and abilities. The shipowner genuinely believes in his ship as it has safely made the voyage on many occasion. He understood that the ship was aging and could benefit from a maintenance, however his emotions clouded his decision. Even though he had an uneasy feeling, he convinced himself that she was safe for the voyage. “He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms As a result,” is an example of him justifying that she is safe to sail. He watch the ship set sail only to never return.
Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it… The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. (Page 1) Let us vary this case also, and suppose, other things remaining as before, that a still more accurate investigation proved the accused to have been really guilty… They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out. (Page 2) In these two excerpts, Clifford flips the outcome of the situations. However, he explains that the shipowner and the agitator would are still in the wrong. His reasoning is that even if the outcome was favorable it would still be wrong due to the lack of supporting evidence.
The hasty generalization fallacy is present in Clifford’s two examples I mentioned. Both the shipowner and the agitator jumped to conclusion without analyzing all of the evidence and possible outcomes.
Clifford’s argument could also be seen categorized as the hasty generalization fallacy as well. He is able to formula a conclusion, however the evidence is rather limited. I believe his argument valid, however it may not necessarily sounded.
(579 words)
Mouakong’s Blog 