Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture. Группа авторов

      Part II

      Epistemology

      Introduction

      Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Is it even possible to acquire knowledge? If so, how does one acquire it? How should one acquire it? If knowledge really is justified, true belief – which has been contested – what is truth anyway? These are the questions an epistemologist asks.

      In Chapter 4, Henry Jacoby takes us to South Park to teach us about the ethics of belief. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) suggests that belief in God can be rational because, even though it lacks evidence, it is the better bet. In contrast, William Clifford (1845–1879) argues that it is always morally wrong to believe without evidence. Stan Marsh of South Park, Colorado agrees with William Clifford. Stan is critical of belief without (and contrary to) evidence, like Kyle's mom's beliefs in holistic healing, the Mormon belief that the first man and woman lived in Missouri, and John Edward's claims that he can communicate with the dead. Examples from South Park demonstrate the dangers of belief without evidence, such as blindly following David Blaine into a mass suicide, and a mental laziness that, Stan tells John Edward, is “slowing down the progress of all mankind.”

      In The Matrix Trilogy, it is revealed that the everyday world humans experience is actually a computer simulation designed to keep humans under control while an artificially intelligent civilization harvests our energy. In Chapter 5, Matt Lawrence uses the predicament in which humanity finds itself in The Matrix to explain what philosophers call “The Skeptical Problem” and Descartes's (1959–1650) solution to it. How can we be sure we're not being deceived on a grand scale like the prisoners of the Matrix?

In Battlestar Galactica, the 12 colonies are destroyed and humanity finds itself looking for a new home. Commander Adama claims he knows the location of the 13th colony – called Earth – when, in fact, he knows nothing of the kind. He simply told a lie to give people hope. It turns out, however, that there actually is an Earth and humanity eventually finds its way there. In Chapter 6, Eric Silverman uses Adama's lie to explore the classic definition of knowledge and the contemporary philosopher Edmund Gettier's conclusion that mere justified, true belief is insufficient for knowledge. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what William Clifford (1845–1879) and William James (1842–1910) have to say about whether holding non‐justified beliefs can be ethical.

      In Chapter 7, Ruby Komic examines epistemic resources, the resources held by a community that an individual must draw upon to gain knowledge. Challenging racist stereotypes, Black Panther provides the viewer with epistemic resources in the form of conceptual tools to understand and communicate about Black, and particularly African American, culture and experience.

4 You Know, I Learned Something Today: Stan Marsh and the Ethics of Belief

      Henry Jacoby

      Summary

      The nineteenth‐century English mathematician and philosopher W.K. Clifford famously argued that it is always wrong to believe anything upon insufficient evidence, even if such beliefs provide comfort and hope. Such beliefs weaken the mind while preventing the search for truth and understanding. This chapter explores Clifford's view through South Park's resident voice of reason, Stan Marsh, as he takes on the crazy and the credulous.

       A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.

      – David Hume

      People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons; sadly, few people pay attention to reasons based on logic, rules of argumentation, theory, or evidence. And the inhabitants of South Park are no different. But why should we think critically and rationally? Why does it matter? What harm is there in believing something if it makes you feel good, provides you with comfort, or gives you hope? If evidence is lacking, so what?

In his essay “The Ethics of Belief,” William Kingdom Clifford (1845–1879), an English mathematician and philosopher, explained the potential harm of believing just anything. “Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self‐control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence,” he wrote, concluding that it's “wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”¹

      Amid the exaggerated craziness and illogic of the citizens of South Park, we're sometimes treated to flashes of insight and well‐thought‐out ideas that surprise us. Stan shows off his critical thinking skills as he takes on TV psychics, various cults, and unsupported religious beliefs in a way that would've made Clifford proud. In this chapter, we'll examine how Stan exposes the frauds and the harm they bring to people, while defending scientific thinking and a healthy skepticism.

Belief and Evidence

      We acquire our beliefs in various ways. Some come from observation of the physical world, and this is usually our best evidence. The kids believe that Mr. Hankey exists because they see him, but what we see isn't always trustworthy. Cartman, after all, sees pink Christina Aguilera creatures floating around, but they aren't real. Often, our beliefs come on the authority or the testimony of others. The parents believe the children have ADD because that's the conclusion reached by school psychologists. Such a belief may sometimes be a reliable one, but not when it comes from the South Park testers, who are fools. Further, we must be careful when relying on authority figures. Maybe Scientologists believe that there were once frozen alien bodies put in the volcanoes in Hawaii because their leaders say so. But this is nonsense that should be rejected by any sane person.

      We see, then, that rational belief requires evidence. The more outrageous the belief, the more evidence is required. As Stan told the Mormon family in “All About Mormons,” “If you're going to say things that have been proven wrong, like the first man and woman lived in Missouri and Native Americans came from Jerusalem, then you better have something to back it up!” Stan is pointing out here that Mormon beliefs should be rejected unless they can be defended, since they're implausible in the face of accepted facts. The Mormons have the burden of proof, that is, the obligation is on them to provide the evidence to back up their claims.

      Sadly, for most of the crazy claims made in South Park, that obligation is never met. But there are exceptions. In “Pandemic” one of the imprisoned members of a Peruvian flute band makes the seemingly preposterous assertion that their music (annoying though it may be) is the only thing keeping away “the furry death.” We later learn that he is correct, as giant guinea pigs wreak havoc in the band's absence. Sometimes what seems absurd can be defended after all! But extraordinary evidence is required. So if you're going to suggest that an alien wizard is causing sexual addiction in some kids (“Sexual Healing”), or that the first pope was really a rabbit (“Fantastic Easter Special”), you'd better have compelling reasons.

      Returning to “All About Mormons,” two villagers are talking about Joseph Smith. One of them says, “He claims he spoke with God and Jesus.” The other one asks, “Well how do you know he didn't?” Is this a fair question? Should unproven claims be accepted when it appears that they can't be disproved? No. A request to disprove something isn't a request that needs to be answered. This is because the burden of proof always lies with the person making the additional claim, not with those who doubt its truth. If this were not the case, then we would be required to entertain any belief, no matter how absurd. I can't disprove the existence