{"id":3672,"date":"2020-04-11T10:25:43","date_gmt":"2020-04-11T14:25:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.6worlds.net\/science-blog\/?page_id=3672"},"modified":"2020-10-30T22:23:50","modified_gmt":"2020-10-31T02:23:50","slug":"crash-course-conspiracy-theories-and-epistemic-responsibility","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.6worlds.net\/science-blog\/science-or-superstition\/chapter-4\/4-3\/crash-course-conspiracy-theories-and-epistemic-responsibility\/","title":{"rendered":"\ud83d\udcfa Crash Course: Conspiracy Theories and Epistemic Responsibility"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We typically assume that the concept of responsibility only applies to what we do<\/strong> and not so much to what we believe<\/strong>. So it’s not that controversial that we shouldn’t do things that might endanger others like drive under the influence of alcohol. We have a responsibility NOT to do things like this. On the other hand, it seems equally clear that what we believe<\/strong> is entirely up to us, that we even have a right<\/strong> to believe whatever we want which is legally protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But our beliefs can easily affect the lives of others. For example, if we do not believe that vaccinating our kids is a good idea and we opt out of vaccinating them as some states permit on “philosophical grounds” — which basically means according to whatever beliefs we happen to hold about vaccines — we can be putting other people’s lives at risk. So cases like this bring up the question of whether we might have a moral<\/strong> responsibility to find out the truth about things based on the best evidence and to drop beliefs lacking such evidence. This is the idea that we might have an epistemic<\/strong> responsibility. John Green explores this notion here in another great Crash Course video. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n