What does it mean that one has formed a belief in a reliable way?
To form a belief in a reliable way means that the reasoning for your belief is from a trusted source. That trust might be formed from a perception that the source is an authority on the topic, or it might be formed through repeated patterns of logical or successful outcomes that have appeared to substantiate other true beliefs, or trust may be formed simply through consistency over time. In fact, consistency over time appears to be a key element of reliability, Pritchard asserts that “…at the very least, the method used was more likely to get you to the truth than not” (2018, p. 54) but how would one trust a method’s likelihood to get to the truth, if it had not consistently done so, repeatedly, time and time again? Which perhaps means that reliably formed belief comes through experience; through repeated activity, that has led to similar or adjacent outcomes forming a sense of reliability of a set of beliefs.
Could a belief so formed be false, do you think?
Pritchard provides an example of one person who repeatedly checks a faulty thermometer, while secretly another person adjusts the faulty thermometer so that every time it is checked, it appears correct, which leads the unsuspecting thermometer checker to belief the thermometer works (2018, p. 55). In this scenario the thermometer checker forms what they believe is a reliable belief in a world that they do not realize is partially built on a well-kept lie. Pritchard’s example seems somewhat fragile (really, how long can the adjuster keep up their sneaky work without the checker finding them out?) Though it’s not too difficult to imagine whole perspectives based on beliefs formed seemingly reliably that are in fact false.
When I was around 4 years old, my family moved houses and for some reason, I thought that moving meant you switched houses with another family. I would often talk about the family that used to live in our new house and wonder aloud what they were doing in our old house, I would ask which of the children took which room as their bedroom. It took years before my father pointedly asked what I was talking about and explained to me that the family did not live in our old house, they bought a different house, but I had believed this for so long because when I talked about it, no one had corrected me, and would respond with “I don’t know, Erin!” without truly listening to me. In retrospect they probably thought I was just making up stories as children do.
At work, I often am in a position of educating the public about estate administration practices. To provide meaningful information, I first listen to their questions and comments closely to gain an understanding of their perspective – where might their beliefs or biases come from? What might they consider a reliable belief and why? How can I best respond to their inquiry? A common example is that many people are hesitant to become involved with their next of kin’s estate because they believe they will be required to personally pay the deceased’s debts. They might believe this because this is true in other jurisdictions, such as certain US states, or certain countries in Europe. They might believe this because a friend of theirs told them this, but perhaps that friend administered an estate in error and was forced to pay out-of-pocket to correct the error. In Canada, generally speaking, a debt solely owned by the deceased is only payable by their estate, not by their family members personally. Yet this example highlights how easily we might form false beliefs through sources that are falsely reliable.
Give an example of a reliable and an unreliable way of forming a belief about the following subject matters (try to avoid repetition in your answers):
the time;
- Reliable: Once a week, look up the world clock on the internet and ensure my watch is set to match.
- Unreliable: Once a week, ask a friend what time their watch says and ensure my watch is set to match.
the Capital of France; and
- Reliable: Go to a bookstore and cross-reference multiple current travel books about France.
- Unreliable: Consult a Ouija board.
the solution to a crossword puzzle.
- Reliable: The clue is related to something I know a lot about, the word is long and crosses 3 other words, the letters in my suggestion match up with all three of the other words.
- Unreliable: The clue is vague to me, the word is long and crosses 3 other words, the letters in my suggestion match up with only two of the other words, I erase the third word, but have difficulty thinking about another suggestion that fits that clue, I think of a loosely fitting word, guess how to spell it, and it fits.
Questions:
- While reading and writing about reliabilism I was thinking a lot about cultural norms, or insular groups with shared beliefs. I questioned whether a problem with reliabilism is that reliability is relative, and what might seem reliablecould only be so within an insular group. I wonder, do others have similar (or differing) thoughts, or thought of an examples related to this idea?
- Another theme that came out of my focus on reliabilism (and what I was attempting to get at in my second, work-related example above), is the recognition that I actively try to anticipate how to deliver information that is accepted as reliable. And although I’m not sure ‘reliable’ alone can replace ‘justified’s’ partnership with ‘true belief’, I do think it has a role in helping us understand knowledge. If we think about strategies we employ to attempt to impart knowledge, can we identify other criteria for what knowledge is?
References:
Pritchard, D., & ProQuest (Firm). (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? (Fourth;1; ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351980326.