The philosopher W. K. Clifford claimed that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. I just read this in a book and found it intriging, what do you think?
2006-10-03 06:06:10 · 18 answers · asked by haiku_katie 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Do you believe he really said that?
2006-10-03 06:11:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course it's wrong to be gullible.
But in philosophy you have to be careful...lol...because almost right away you get into the question of what constitutes "sufficient evidence."
Still, we all know what we mean, or think we mean, when we use the term "gullible." Relgious people, for example, are required to have "faith" in the absence of any real evidence for their beliefs. "God" cannot be demonstrated; he must simply be accepted. The problem with these sorts of assumptions is that they very soon begin to poison one's ability to think and reason at all. Thus "fundies" are convinced that dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to convince the faithless that the literal biblical chronology is wrong.
Incidentally, that's the difference between religion and science. Religion begins with dogmatic assumptions which it projects on the world; whereas science begins by looking at the world and then drawing rational conclusions based on experiment.
2006-10-03 13:29:14 · answer #2 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gullibility is a lazy, simplistic attitude. It is also a way to escape responsibility; the sucker can claim to be unfairly victimized--"I only got hurt because I trust people, what's wrong with that?" This whiner knows from experience that he was not acting realistically, but he plays on the irrational respect for innocence. A sucker is not a victim, he is an accomplice.
2006-10-03 13:26:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi, Haiku_Katie,
Well naive/gullible people, are peaceful people and always thinks that : "black is black" and "white is white"... never thinking that the color could be tainted.. Being naive isn't a good thinking... many would just step over you or take advantage of you... but that doesn't mean that "all" people who seem to think naive are really naive... being naive is a good disguise to hide your true feelings or intentions... They are probably the most cunning people ... ;)
>>>>>>>>>
Naivety, can be a good thing.... It is a sign of a person who "trusts".. what is around them.... The danger lies with those who would take advantage of the naive person... Yet the second you stop trusting these bad people, you are no longer naive...;)
Thanks, for the question!;)
My regards! .. Don't worry too much...
2006-10-03 22:42:06 · answer #4 · answered by Kimberly 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I dont know about 'wrong' persay...because gullible would imply an innocent ignorance. But I'm sure it can be dangerous for the gullible person if they dont begin to learn from their mistakes, and lack of knowledge
2006-10-03 13:14:24 · answer #5 · answered by smurfee68 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no being gullible is not wrong. it can get many tricks played on you but wrong not according to me. it just means you are being you. if that man is a philosopher, he needs to quit because anyone who tells you you should change yourself is not very smart.
2006-10-03 13:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by precious_mommy_of_1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Innocence is a condition wasted on the stupid.
Somebody has to be the feast-er and someones gotta a be the food.
It is the way of the world.
Shhhhh... don't tell them!
2006-10-03 13:14:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everytime someone tells me that gullible is written on the ceiling, I look and can't find it.
2006-10-03 13:08:36 · answer #8 · answered by Stranger in a Strangeland 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not wrong to be gulible. It certainly does not play to your advantage. Nor does it help you to be weak willed.
2006-10-03 13:13:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. If everyone was like this, gossip columns would be much shorter.
2006-10-03 13:08:07 · answer #10 · answered by Jenyfer C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone once told me that the word 'gullible' wasn't in the dictionary..............
2006-10-03 13:14:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋