Running head: “A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE.

” 1

“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”

Essay 2

(Name)

(University)

03-December-2020
“A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE.”
2

COVER PAGE

This article aims to provide Hume with a view of the « proportion of the proof» and

insight into how other philosophers such as William speak. This notion is also at the heart of

Hume's positive reasoning, as he establishes his conception of cause and reason. The declaration

again arises from a logic that is very plain to embrace. We do so for a cause if we decide to trust

in something. It is generally a choice of some kind. Hume had been an empiricist who believed

that the stuff we have strong evidence of can only be taken for granted and significantly

impacted Anglo-American philosophy development. He is still sometimes quoted on miracles,

for example. A human understanding inquiry suggests that owing to their intrinsic improbability,

proof for benefits is not good enough:

"The wise man offers proof of his beliefs and may "always reject the greatest miracle."
“A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE.”
3

Hume himself was a happy and kind man, who was persuaded that the formula for great joy

was moderate. "The wise man purported his faith to the evidence" because he should always

reject the greater miracle.".Hume claimed morality was based on feelings of compassion for

other people. Caring for others tends to advance our species and also to give happiness in human

society. Hume said that all religions' morals are wrong and that when he heard the religious man,

he found out that he was a scoff. Even if he knew some instances of outstanding people being

spiritual." He was confused about the inconsistency between Hume's apparent goodness and his

lack of faith. It is incorrect to believe in inadequate proof in the theory of Clifford. Only means it

is not wrong to think in a preliminary case of evidence.

He would like to convince us that it is of real ethical importance to shape our beliefs

properly. Thus, an example that seems strongly interlinked between religion and ethics is that the

shipowner knows that his ship could be rehabilitated. But, he talks himself out of his doubts, the

boat leaves Port. He remembers that many times before the ship safely sailed. He recalled that he

trusts Providence. And he does not suspect the shipbuilders and contractors who have worked on

the in the past. Clifford agrees I can regulate my behavior even though my opinion is set, and I

have to be sure to behave (e.g., to have my vessel tested before I take him on a long journey).

However, he also insists that the initial decision stands: if the belief has been illegitimate, it has

happened without adequate proof. Therefore the person maintaining the religion has failed to do

his or her job. It's because belief isn't actually out of touch. To believe means to have a particular

propensity to behave. And if I have a firm conviction without evidence, it clouds my judgment as

I attempt to examine facts attentively.

In truth, this concept is the heart of Hume's constructive argument since it describes his

cause and rationale. The statement itself emerges from reasoning that is very easy to embrace.

We do something for a reason when we want to believe in anything. That is generally a kind of

choice, e.g., we can agree with a philosopher because he is readable and understandable.

Simultaneously, the statement seems, unlike a philosopher who can be approved, to be either

sound or as well-backed by proof. There is the probability that the philosopher will take sides

with such a person because of less evidence. The saint also assumes that the sage does not

approve of the philosopher.

Hume's trigger image provides a clearer idea of what Hume says and why he believes it is

valid. Hume says our theories about cause and effect are generally somewhat misguided because

we assume that the connections between two are appropriate; however, we will never know the

relationship between one case and another. Still, based on experience, all we can do is the judge.

I essentially see the same thing happening again and again, and finally, I equate one thing with

what I have seen, and I label the first cause of the incident and the following effect. E.g., I kick

and pass a football. Many times in my life, I kicked a lot of football, and they still moved. I

thought of the association that when I kick a football, it moves, and that theory also developed

into a cause and effect, where my kick is the cause and the ball's movement the effect. I make

this connection, though, of course, the relationship between the lift and the move the link

between them, I will never tell for sure. I saw the combination often enough to conclude.

In The Will to Believe, William James is making a very different kind of event. The

explicit purpose of James is to defend faith philosophically. He points out the circumstances

under which he feels anything like confidence is ideal and the reasoning for this. James refers

specifically to the transparent, evidence-based approach of Clifford’s. He believes that facts will
“A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE.”
5

resolve the matter of whether to think in specific contexts. Still, questions can be determined by

evidence; James says it is acceptable for our "passion nature" to take over our convictions

depend in part on what will make any sense of us and our universe, as to what will give value to

us, or what will make peace a thing to do. For James, then at least some of the belief criteria are

realistic.

This controversy has revived over the last decade, and the topic of if to believe it against

facts is ever acceptable once again became a real question. However, it's never easy to describe

what one possible cause for this revival. But a problem back in a metaphysical form whose

"Reformed epistemologists" have been considered to be answered endorse trust by claiming that

faith is often justified even though, for them, no one has any evidence. "A wise man

proportionates his faith with his proof," Hume's statement said. "Is also used to synthesize the

evidence. In particular, Hume thinks that good faith requires trusting according to evidence-

based laws which can be defined as the rules of the wise".Hume, however, admits that if one can

obey these rules consistently, one might be left lacking any convictions whatsoever. It is

impossible without circular reasoning to create the sentence to proportion your belief with

evidence; this is the situation with many of the more fundamental system beliefs. So if Hume

allows evidence, the framework is accepted, although essentially rationally baseless. And I

contend that Hume explains why we should proportion our confidence to the facts.

As per Hume, the wise man weighs what he thinks against facts and determines

accordingly. Part of this specifically affects Hume's point on miracles too. An advantage is a

breach of Nature's rules. Each experience of someone's existence conforms in every way to the

laws of Nature in any new venture. It is conceivable that a recent experience will be viewed as a

miracle if that is seen as something new but entirely different from all past encounters in that it
“A WISE MAN PROPORTIONS HIS BELIEF TO THE EVIDENCE.”
6

disobeys Nature's rules. However, there are almost no arguments to choose this based on

experience or proof because Hume implies that nearly all of our evidence is a product of

experience. He was taking an infant, for example, who has poked for the first time in the eye.

And believe that the kid can comprehend and deduce how we can. At first, the kid will agree that

the poke in somebody's eyes is how the world is not a magical occurrence, even though the event

is accidental, unpredictable, and uncommon. Maybe the kid always knows it can be damaged,

perhaps not, but he's going to know it. If the kid may have believed that the poke was a miracle,

he may realize that he has been injured, that what he has witnessed was not a miracle, but the

manner the world is.

Still, many pretend to have witnessed wonders. And they agree that even if something has

been achieved before that moment, what they saw in a miracle is something that can never

correspond to their previous experience. It would never adhere to its history, and the entirety of

its experience conformed to the rules of Nature, which are not miracles. If I've kicked a thousand

football balls, but they all shift as I kick them, I'll say they move, not turn into a lion whenever I

hit a football. Faith here is like saying that anything is like kicking a football and believing in it

has been a lion because they both want to trust something that clashes with their experience. If,

even though I don't realize it at once, I've never found my experiences to coincide with the

world, why do I suppose something that I experience doesn't work like that suddenly?

A wise man will not build his confidence in his knowledge because he is smart. As per

Hume, a wise man doesn't believe in miracles, for there is no evidence to help him. However,

proof of the reverse is there. We all share the assumption that we do have everything in the

evidence we have with it.