Part 1: Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgJ3hDk0-V0 Read the article: https://aeon.co/ideas/to-avoid-moral-failure-dont-see-people-as-sherlock-does Your post

Part 1:

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgJ3hDk0-V0

Read the article: https://aeon.co/ideas/to-avoid-moral-failure-dont-see-people-as-sherlock-does

Your post should be a MINIMUM 350 words. Summarize the videos. You can say what you liked, disliked, agreed with, disagreed with, add an example, give an objection, raise a question, or discuss how the video interacts with other things we’ve discussed in class. The most important thing is that you add something substantial rather than merely summarizing things. Also consider writing things that your classmates may find interesting, things they may want to reply to, or raise questions for them to think more about.

Part 2:

Replying to other message board posts:

You must respond to 2 other students’ work.

Your responses should each be a MINIMUM 100 words. React to the other person’s response. Do you agree? If so, note this and add something to their claims—an example, a new argument or reason in support of the view, or how the view might respond to an objection. Do you disagree? Kindly and respectfully explain why you disagree. Disagreement in a discussion of a friendly discussion is strongly encouraged. However, please do not attack anyone personally—keep the focus on the ideas.

Reply 1) This weeks video dicusses Evidentialism, which is the idea that what you believe in is determined by your evidence. there are two reasons that support this theory, one is that we want tru beiliefs and thus using our evidence to support what we belive in is a good way of knowing the truth. The second reason is that it can explain cases of good and bad beliefs. We are then presented with three challenges to evidentialism, which are:

Epistemic partially, in which we can have different beliefs depending on how close your relationship is to another such and friends and family, and if this true then evidentialism would be considered false.

Moral encroachment, in which the evidenve we have may not tell the full story and therefore we must think about whther or not our beliefs are morally wrong.

Benficial beliefs, in which it is worth believing something that may go against the evidence you have for the reason that it may benefit you or others in some way. 

Finally we are presented with respones to these challenges, which are: 

We may not have the same evidence and that the evidence can possible affect what we believe in.

If factors other than evidence affect what we believe in then how can we explain that wishful thinking and hast generalizations are not good reasons for belief? 

After this weeks video in my opinion I think that evidentialism can be effective in different situations, and I understand the idea of benificial beliefs more, because it’s pretty common for people to believe in something because it benefits them. An example of this would be people believing the same things as their friends or family to fit in. 

2) This video discussed Evidentialism, the idea that what you should believe is determined only by your evidence.

The reasons to support this is theory:

We want true beliefs 

Evidentialism can explain cases of good vs. bad beliefs. 

Three challenges to evidentialism: 

Epistemic Partiality: we may believe differently depending on the relationship with the people

Moral Encroachment: evidence doesn’t tell the full story, we must think if our belief is morally wrong

Beneficial Beliefs: sometimes it’s worth believing something that goes against evidence b/c it could have important benefits to yourself and others

How Evidentialists may respond:

1) In some cases, you don’t have the same evidence and the evidence can be affected by your belief going into it

2) How do you justify wishful thinking as a bad reason for belief if other reasons outside of evidence are considered good (ie. morality)

After watching this video, I sided more with those who challenged Evidentialism. I really resonated with the idea of beneficial beliefs. I agree that if you do not have much to lose, but more to gain, it is worth it to believe against the evidence. 

Part 3:

Answer the following questions in sentences.

In 1-2 paragraphs, summarize the reading. Make sure to discuss the way Sherlock views people, and why Basu thinks it is wrong.

What did you think of the reading? Critically evaluate it. What did you agree with? What did you disagree with? For example, do you think it is *always* wrong to see people as Sherlock does? Would doing what Basu says violate evidentialism

What would you like to talk about out in large group meeting next Monday? What questions do you have about this unit (including testimony, echo chambers, morality and evidentialism)? What topics would you like to discuss more?