(September 25, 2012 at 12:49 am)CliveStaples Wrote: I wouldn't call someone who had accurate beliefs about black holes "gullible" because of those beliefs.
Not because of their beliefs, but because they don't have the evidence to support it.
(September 25, 2012 at 12:49 am)CliveStaples Wrote: But then, I don't think there's ever a good reason not to believe something that's true. If it's true, it seems to me that you should believe it. I'd rather have true beliefs and be "gullible" under your definition than to lack true beliefs and be perfectly not-"gullible".
And how exactly do you propose to tell the difference? If you start believing things just because they might be true, then most of your beliefs would end up being false and you'd never know the difference. Holding a false belief on evidence is better than holding ten true ones on faith - because the former leaves you the means to correct it, while the latter destroys your capacity to tell the difference.
