Do you agree with Clifford that it is "wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"? Clifford argues that we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of carefully weighing evidence, and we promote credulity if we do believe based on insufficient evidence. Do you agree that such consequences follow from breaking Clifford's rule? James argues that there are some decisions in which believing in spite of lack of evidence is warranted--we can let our emotions decide in cases in which reason based on evidence cannot help (like the fear of being wrong or the fear of missing out on the truth, or the hope of being right). There are pragmatic benefits to some beliefs, but they are only attained through believing, for example. Can you think of --provide links to, even-- examples of cases of believing without evidence that might support either James'
This is the end of the preview. Sign up
access the rest of the document.