William James gave a talk on justification by faith in 1896. He says there are certain kinds of beliefs that we can hold and not be irrational. And not make some sort of moral error, even if we don't have sufficient evidence to believe it's true. One of the distinctions he makes is between live hypotheses and dead hypotheses.
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: