Clifford's Threshold Is Sufficient

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

"We may regard the chase for truth as paramount and the avoidance of error as secondary," he writes. "What he's saying about Clifford is that he exhorts us to the latter course, believe nothing he tells us ... rather than closing it on insufficient evidence." He doesn't mean not 100 percent evidence but someone like Clifford who thinks you need full evidence would be sufficient.

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: