Related link: Peter van Inwagen’s article Is it wrong everywhere, always, and for everyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence?. van Inwagen suggests not, on the grounds that if it were then no philosopher could ever continue believing something firmly when there are other smarter equally well informed philosophers who strongly disagree. I find this argument less compelling than van Inwagen does.
Haha. You should believe exactly what the evidence suggests, and exactly to the degree that it suggests it. The argument is also an amusing example of ‘one man’s modus ponens...’.
Related link: Peter van Inwagen’s article Is it wrong everywhere, always, and for everyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence?. van Inwagen suggests not, on the grounds that if it were then no philosopher could ever continue believing something firmly when there are other smarter equally well informed philosophers who strongly disagree. I find this argument less compelling than van Inwagen does.
Haha. You should believe exactly what the evidence suggests, and exactly to the degree that it suggests it. The argument is also an amusing example of ‘one man’s modus ponens...’.