Compare and contrast the positions of W. Clifford and William James on the question when can and should we accept something as true. Why does Clifford think that it is always wrong to accept something on insufficient evidence? What does he mean by ‘sufficient evidence'? How come James argues that sometimes it is permissible to accept a belief on non-intellectual, ‘passional' grounds? What exactly does James say about the religious
beliefs?
- Always start by clarifying/defining your main terms and concepts. The topic requires textual analysis - i.e., carefully reading and analyzing the textual material. There is no obligation to bring additional sources. However, if you do, you are encouraged to use the ‘real’ books and articles as your sources. Please note that the use of internet sources is frowned upon.
Sample Solution