Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T10:05:58.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

William James on Risk, Efficacy, and Evidentialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2020

P.D. Magnus Open the ORCID record for P.D. Magnus [Opens in a new window]
P.D. Magnus*
Affiliation:
University at Albany, State University of New York, New York, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: pmagnus@fecundity.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

William James’ argument against William Clifford in The Will to Believe is often understood in terms of doxastic efficacy, the power of belief to influence an outcome. Although that is one strand of James’ argument, there is another which is driven by ampliative risk. The second strand of James’ argument, when applied to scientific cases, is tantamount to what is now called the Argument from Inductive Risk. Either strand of James’ argument is sufficient to rebut Clifford's strong evidentialism and show that it is sometimes permissible to believe in the absence of compelling evidence. However, the two considerations have different scope and force. Doxastic efficacy applies in only some cases but allows any values to play a role in determining belief; risk applies in all cases but only allows particular conditional values to play a role.

Keywords

William JamesWilliam Cliffordwill to believeevidentialismdoxastic efficacyinductive risk
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 146 - 158
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aikin, S.F. and Talisse, R.B. (2018). ‘Clifford's Pragmatism and The Will to Believe.’ In Pragmatism, Pluralism, and the Nature of Philosophy, pp. 59–75. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (2017). Experiencing William James. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ChoGlueck, C. (2018). ‘The Error is in the Gap: Synthesizing Accounts for Societal Values in Science.’ Philosophy of Science 85(3), 704–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, W.K. (1886). ‘The Ethics of Belief.’ In Stephen, L. and Pollock, F. (eds), Lectures and Essays, 2nd edn, pp. 339–63. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Douglas, H.E. (2000). ‘Inductive Risk and Values in Science.’ Philosophy of Science 67(4), 559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H.E. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K.C. and Richards, T. (2017). Exploring Inductive Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1965). ‘Science and Human Values.’ In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, pp. 81–96. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, E. and Turnbull, M.G. (Forthcoming). ‘Permissivism, Underdetermination, and Evidence.’ In Routledge Handbook for the Philosophy of Evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
James, W. (1979 [1897]). The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, ed. Burckhardt, F., Bowers, F. and Skrupselis, I.K.. In Burckhardt, F. (gen. ed.), The Works of William James. Volume 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2014). ‘Evidence Can Be Permissive.’ In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 298–312. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. (1958). ‘Pragmatism, Pragmaticism, and the Will to Believe – a Reconsideration.’ Journal of Philosophy 55(14), 578–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, A. (2018). ‘In Defense of Wishful Thinking: James, Quine, Emotions, and the Web of Belief.’ In Baghramian, M. and Marchetti, S. (eds), Pragmatism and the European Traditions: Encounters with Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology Before the Great Divide, pp. 228–50. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Magnus, P.D. (2005). ‘Peirce: Underdetermination, Agnosticism, and Related Mistakes.’ Inquiry 48(1), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P.D. (2013). ‘What Scientists Know Is Not a Function of What Scientists Know.’ Philosophy of Science 80(5), 840–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P.D. (2014). ‘Science and Rationality for One and All.’ Ergo 1(5), 129–38.Google Scholar
Magnus, P.D. (2018). ‘Science, Values, and the Priority of Evidence.’ Logos & Episteme 9(4), 413–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, B.J. (2006). ‘Helicobacter Connections.’ In Grandin, K. (ed.), Les Prix Nobel, pp. 250–77. Stockholm: Nobel Foundation.Google Scholar
Meacham, C. (2019). ‘Deference and Uniqueness.’ Philosophical Studies 176(3), 709–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, R.G. (1971). ‘Meaning and Metaphysics in James.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31(3), 369–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misak, C. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nehamas, A. (2007). Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rudner, R. (1953). ‘The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.’ Philosophy of Science 20(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welchman, J. (2006). ‘William James's ‘The Will to Believe’ and the Ethics of Self-Experimentation.’ Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42(2), 229–41.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (2008). ‘The Duty to Believe According to the Evidence.’ International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion 63(1/3), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar