I do think there's a lot of rhetoric and a lot of hyperbole in James that especially if you're not, if you don't find yourself initially intrigued by the argument, it's just going to be annoying. But yeah, I do think though, like the risk aversion, I think what he's in the same way that I've complained about how Americans are too risk averse with personal safety or physical harm. And maybe here is where someone like Sam would definitely be aligned with what I believe. There was a part that really was, was weirdly prescient. Why do so few scientists quote unquote even look at the evidence for telepathy so-called because they think as
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: