Is It Necessary to Adopt a Pragmatist Approach to What Truth Is?

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

I mean, it's such an ironic thing. And I get that their point is, people will use it as a means to block other attempts at greater justice. But the pragmatist view is really like, does your belief work in whatever way I'm defining work? And that's sort of like a low bar for truth as we might use the word, at least in science or anybody who's a realist about anything.

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: