The Will to Believe by William James

In the Will to Believe, William James argues that accepting a hypothesis does not require tangible or empirical proof but a self-validation to necessitate the hypothesis’s verification. James gives three sets of options to consider when adopting hypothesis. The first is whether the hypothesis is living or dead. Living is defined as “one which appeals as a real possibility to whom it is proposed.” So, an individual adopting a live hypothesis must regard seriously. The second option is whether the hypothesis is forced or avoidable. An avoidable hypothesis can be deemed as true or false, but a forced hypothesis is when a hypothesis must be accepted as truth or without it. The latter disjunction compels the person to choose the hypothesis. The third option is a momentous or trivial one. The hypothesis is momentous insofar that it has a sense of preeminence behind the decision. A trivial option is characterized when the hypothesis is inconsequential and easily replicable

            The hypothesis and the options consummate in ultimately what is verified as true or false in accordance to the observer. Two extreme examples are provided as they to science and religion. He rules against their particular approaches as not meeting his universal standards for accepting a hypothetical truth. He elaborates on Pascal’s gambit and its non-candid approach. The wager neglects to affirm the god hypothesis as living, forced, and momentous. The gambit falls short, since its acceptance is based on beliefs that do not meet the rigor of the aforementioned ideals. The other extreme is Clifford’s espousal to the scientific method and its implicit skepticism. The belief is diametrically opposed to Pascal’s by avoiding to believe what is false as opposed to just licentiously believing. For James, Clifford’s approach is not necessarily wrong, but is actually right relative to Clifford. However, Clifford’s skeptical approach is not universally justifiable. For James a hypothesis is accepted on the basis from where one stands as opposed to where one sits (ideologically). There are markedly different approaches to the same truth and observations refuting that truth.

            In sum, James attempts to reconcile the acceptance of hypothesis with the consequences and prejudices for the observer accepting it. Specifically, if the observer truly believes in the hypothesis—pursuant to James’s options— then he or she should accept it regardless—or in addition—to empirical evidence or skeptical inquiry. Therefore, the will to believe is not only reconcilable to inquiries that are out of the domain of the empirical sciences but within them too.

-Vicente Barriatos