Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theories, & Epistemic Responsibility: Crash Course Philosophy

The video discusses the resurgence of diseases due to anti-vaccine beliefs and introduces the concept of epistemic responsibility in philosophy. W. K. Clifford argues that it is wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence, using a ship owner analogy to illustrate the potential harm of such beliefs. William James counters by suggesting that some beliefs, like religious faith, can be morally held without evidence if they are live, forced, and momentous options. The video concludes by highlighting the importance of understanding and arguing against baseless beliefs.

What is the main reason for the resurgence of diseases like measles, according to the video?

• Climate change

• Poor hygiene practices

• Anti-vaccine beliefs

• Lack of medical facilities

According to W.K. Clifford, what is the moral obligation regarding beliefs?

• To believe anything that feels right

• To believe only what is popular

• To believe only with sufficient evidence

• To believe based on personal experience

In Clifford's ship owner example, what was the owner's main fault?

• Sailing the ship in bad weather

• Not repairing the ship

• Believing the ship was seaworthy without evidence

• Charging too much for tickets

What does William James argue about beliefs without evidence?

• They are always immoral

• They can be morally held if they are live, forced, and momentous

• They should be avoided at all costs

• They are only acceptable in scientific contexts

Which of the following is NOT a criterion for a belief to be morally held according to William James?

• Forced

• Momentous

• Live

• Trivial

How does James view agnosticism in the context of belief in God?

• As a form of belief

• As irrelevant to the discussion

• As equivalent to disbelief

• As a valid third option

What is the main challenge in addressing baseless beliefs, as discussed in the conclusion?

• Lack of philosophical tools

• Insufficient evidence for all beliefs

• Inability to argue intelligently

• Complexity of epistemic responsibility