The human race tends to have a variety of beliefs throughout both concrete and abstract areas of knowledge, in this essay I will explore to what degree beliefs need evidence. Using examples, I will focus on the following knowledge issues; does our perception of evidence justify our beliefs? And are we able to have beliefs without evidence? Noticeably, all areas of knowledge are benefited by support from evidence. It is a question of how much evidence is needed for sufficient support.
The title holds many concepts that can be explored in different ways. ‘Beliefs’ can be described as spontaneous occurrences of vivid ideas in the mind’ (Pojman). More abstract areas of knowledge such as art can adopt this meaning as they require less ‘evidence’ ;being subjective means that it does not necessarily require physical proof. ‘Beliefs can also be caused by experiencing things in constant conjunction to each other’ (Pojman). This depicts the fact that belief is more of a ‘reasoned process.’ More concrete areas of knowledge like Human and Natural sciences will usually follow this meaning. Science is a methodical process in which we experiment to test theories which constantly use evidence. ‘Evidence’ can be defined as the ‘availability of facts or information indicating whether a ‘belief’ or proposition is true or valid’. In this definition we already see that evidence demands physical proof. However, evidence is not limited to the physical state. For example, religion is individual and religious people claim to ‘believe in Gods existence’, evidence in this case may not be physical but it can be ‘gut feelings’ and ‘emotions’.
There are different ways of perceiving evidence; a young girl may take the money under her pillow as ‘evidence’ for her ‘belief’ in the tooth fairy. Her inexperience may lead her to believe that her elders are telling her the truth, leading to the vivid ideas in her mind being based on what authorities may tell her. However, to many this is false evidence, thus her belief is false. The only reason that her evidence is false is that we perceive the scenario through our knowledge that the elders have put the money under her pillow .Sometimes evidence given is not necessarily true which shows that evidence can be deceiving thus, not supporting our beliefs.
In more abstract areas of knowledge evidence seems unnecessary for the most part. Famous journalist Ann Landers said ‘No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence’. In IB Art I recently created a ‘Robert Ruchensburg’ inspired collage. My initial opinion of it was that it had no unity and balance; I was not aesthetically pleased by the artwork but my classmates were. One may be completely repelled by an art piece, one may absolutely love it – it is a subjective opinion. I particularly find ‘emotion’ to be a more important support factor to an artistic belief; this would be the ‘evidence’ for the aesthetic or theoretic qualities in an art piece. the beauty of an art pieces tends to be universal (even though the piece is created subjectively) and with ‘emotion’ and an established ‘meaning’, more people will be attracted to an art piece. In this case, evidence helps strengthen ones belief.
More concrete areas of knowledge need physical evidence for support. In natural science we see that evidence acts as an extra bonus to any experiment. Utilizing ‘Hooke’s law’ in Physics implies that I believe it. I must be willing to go along with everything in relation to the law; my whole experiment is based on it- my hypothesis, explanations and conclusion. However, because I believe ‘Hooke’s Law’ I was slightly biased in my test and I disregarded other evidence that may have ruined my experiment. However, Einstein claimed that a natural scientist could carry on without having any belief in the truth of his favored hypothesis. He could rest content with accepting them in the light of cognitively relevant considerations (Pojman). There is enough relevant evidence for Hooke’s law but it is clear that when experimenting I have to be aware of potential flaws. This is in keeping with much of scientific practice whereby scientists use evidence most of the time but are also able to ignore it by means of falsification. Moreover, medical practice is ‘evidence based’ in that ‘the conscientious, explicit, judicious use of current best evidence is needed in making decisions about the care of individual patients’ (McPhee). Doctor’s prescriptions are based on results from unbiased trials. These trials eliminate bias by blinding patients from knowing whether they are receiving the therapy or not .Newer trials and drugs illustrate the falsification of previous medications as being the most supreme (McPhee). This again shows the importance of both the use and falsification of evidence.
Recently, in IB Economics we have been looking at macro economics -the study of aggregate supply. There are two main theories concerning Long run aggregate supply the Keynesian and the Neo-Classical. Both have substantial evidence as to why they are the right option for an economy but, they are both completely different. Keynesian says the government has a large role to play in the economy whereas classical says the government should have a minimal role in the economy (Glanville). Both have evidence supporting their beliefs but that does not make any more superior over another. This comes to show that evidence is necessary to support our beliefs, without evidence one theory would fall behind another. Yet, at the same time with two kinds of evidence for the same concept, can we trust that evidence supports beliefs?
In Economics we see that evidence is valued (like the example above). A lot of the time statistics and data are used as evidence. However, ‘the most challenging task of the statistical critic is the measurement and interpretation of relationships is caught with hazards especially when assumptions about cause and effect are made.’(Cambell) The major issue with statistics (like sometimes seen in natural science) is ignoring certain qualities. A causes B so B causes C, but we forget that there were other sub-factors in A affecting B, so we never can never achieve perfect data! We are victims of the ‘ad hoc fallacy’ which is where merely because A and B occur together or in succession to a statistically significant degree-one is cause and the other effect. It is almost impossible to pull off a carefully controlled environment (Cambell). Thus, ‘evidence’ is not always necessary to support our beliefs because often we ignore inputting factors.
It is clear that many areas of knowledge need evidence to support claims and beliefs. The two contrasting idea that ‘belief’ is ‘spontaneous’ or ‘reasoned’ is a determining factor to whether or not we need evidence. If ‘spontaneous’ then our beliefs do not demand much evidence, however, if ‘reasoned’ then evidence is needed to justify the belief. If evidence is perceived as ‘physical facts’ then it is needed to justify a belief. Likewise, if it is seen as ‘emotion’ then it helps support a belief .Even though our evidence isn’t always accurate, it is almost impossible to have beliefs without evidence because whether abstract or not there is a type of evidence that strengthens ones beliefs.
Word Count: 1213

Bibliography
• Pojman, Louis P. What Can We Know?: an Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Belmont [Calif.: Wadsworth Pub., 1995. Print.
• McPhee, Stephen J., and Maxine A. Papadakis. Current Consult Medicine 2007. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print.
• Cambell, SL K. Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking. Dove, 2002. Print.
• Glanville, Alan. Economics from a Global Perspective: a Text Book for Use with the International Baccalaureate Economics Programme. Oxford: Glanville, 2003. Print.