His argument seems to be(roughly) 1)All beliefs influence action in some way or another 2)Actions based on unjustified beliefs either cause harm directly, or they promote credulity which results in broad social ills 3) Therefore it is always wrong to hold unjustified beliefs Both premise()and (2)seem questionable. Here are three questions for you to think about i Is it really plausible that all unsupported beliefs, i.e., beliefs based on weak evidence, have, or may be expected bad consequences i Is it possible to have a belief that has no effect whatsoever on action? i Is it ever wrong in itself to believe without sufficient evidence? Could it alays be wrong in itself to believe without sufficient evidence 3. Pragmatism(James) There are many different kinds of circumstances in which we are faced with the decision about what to believe. James offers a view about when unsupported belief is permitted. Options living v. dead: living"make an electric connection with your nature" forced v avoidable forced leave no other alternatives momentous v trivial: momentous have big stakes and the chance is unique genuine: living, forced, momentous Pragmatism: Faced with a genuine choice about what to believe, and where evidence does not decide the matter, we are free to decide it however we want As James puts it, "our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds. "(129) 4. James's response to Clifford How does Clifford know that Evidentialism is true? Argument for it is unconvincing James suggestion: Clifford is not convinced of evidentialism by evidence, but rather a feeling--Quite simply, Clifford is afraid. Of what? Of making a mistake, of falling into error. His demand that we believe only what is based on the evidence is based on no more than his"preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe"(129) Won't Clifford have a response that we should avoid error is not my own private obsession--isn't it a real and objective danger? James replies: Reading Clifford one might think that only evidentialists are concerned with truth. But There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion: we must know the truth and we must avoid error. These are our first and great commandments as would-be knowers but there are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. (129) So, James concludes, we must be guided by two principles: (i)KNOW TRUTH, (ii) AVOID ERROR. We need both otherwise we should believe everything, or nothing. On James's view, the evidentialist is one who ignores one commandment in obsessive pursuit of the other. So, in the end, James maintains that evidentialism is based simply on aHis argument seems to be (roughly): 1) All beliefs influence action in some way or another. 2) Actions based on unjustified beliefs either cause harm directly, or they promote credulity which results in broad social ills. 3) Therefore it is always wrong to hold unjustified beliefs. Both premise (1) and (2) seem questionable. Here are three questions for you to think about: ï Is it really plausible that all unsupported beliefs, i.e., beliefs based on weak evidence, have, or may be expected to have, bad consequences? ï Is it possible to have a belief that has no effect whatsoever on action? ï Is it ever wrong in itself to believe without sufficient evidence? Could it always be wrong in itself to believe without sufficient evidence? 3. Pragmatism (James) There are many different kinds of circumstances in which we are faced with the decision about what to believe. James offers a view about when unsupported belief is permitted. Options: living v. dead: living "make an electric connection with your nature" forced v. avoidable: forced leave no other alternatives momentous v. trivial: momentous have big stakes and the chance is unique genuine: living, forced, momentous Pragmatism: Faced with a genuine choice about what to believe, and where evidence does not decide the matter, we are free to decide it however we want. As James puts it, "our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds." (129) 4. James's response to Clifford How does Clifford know that Evidentialism is true? Argument for it is unconvincing. James' suggestion: Clifford is not convinced of evidentialism by evidence, but rather a feeling--Quite simply, Clifford is afraid. Of what? Of making a mistake, of falling into error. His demand that we believe only what is based on the evidence is based on no more than his "preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe"(129). Won't Clifford have a response: that we should avoid error is not my own private obsession--isn't it a real and objective danger? James replies: Reading Clifford one might think that only evidentialists are concerned with truth. But: There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion: we must know the truth and we must avoid error. These are our first and great commandments as would-be knowers; but there are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. (129) So, James concludes, we must be guided by two principles: (i) KNOW TRUTH, (ii) AVOID ERROR. We need both, otherwise we should believe everything, or nothing. On James's view, the evidentialist is one who ignores one commandment in obsessive pursuit of the other. So, in the end, James maintains that evidentialism is based simply on a