We Don't Believe Any of Our Beliefs Because There Is Enough Evidence for It

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

I don't see that as the same thing as saying we don't believe any of our beliefs because we have sufficient evidence for them. It just means that at some point somebody had to not have sufficient evidence, even just in order to discover what the evidence was for that belief. So he's saying that the belief in belief in something because there is enough evidence for it is just not the way that we actually know things. I think that what he is trying to say is even the chemist has to have faith that something is true.

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: