"It is wrong always everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence," he says. "If a belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, even though the belief be true as Clifford on the same page explains, the pleasure is a stolen one." He adds that we should guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the rest of the town.
David and Tamler argue about William James' classic essay "The Will to Believe." What's more important - avoiding falsehood or discovering truth? When (if ever) is it rational to believe anything without enough evidence? What about beliefs that we can't be agnostic about? Are there hypotheses that we have to believe in order for them to come true? Does James successfully demonstrate that faith can be rational?
Plus, a philosopher at Apple who's not allowed to talk to the media - what are they hiding? And why are academics constantly telling students that academia is a nightmare?
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: