Comments on the Will to Believe
Author: Gale, Richard
Source: Social Epistemology, Volume 20, Number 1, January-March 2006 , pp. 35-39(5)
Abstract:Kasher and Nishi interpret James as holding an expressivist theory about epistemic duties, as well as other normative sentences. On this interpretation, James's claim that we have a will-to-believe type option to believe an epistemic duty winds up being inconsistent. For one can believe only that which is either true or false; but, for the expressivist, normative claims are neither. It is argued that Feldman's essay is not only a wildly anachronistic account of Clifford and James but also is of no philosophical merit in its own right.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: January 1, 2006