I think that a lot of the time that we exclude things, we're doing it because they're dead hypotheses to us. So sometimes I don't I think James might be right that we don't have the same standard of sufficient evidence for all of our beliefs. In fact, probably there we have wildly different standards. And one of the differences then is that some of them are live hypotheses. And so we choose to believe them or at least we're open to believing them. But others are not. The reason they're not is not because there's less evidence, but because there's some other reason there's like religious belief for a long time was like that for me. Still is actually
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: