Editing William James (section)

== Epistemology ==
[[File:William James - John La Farge.jpg|thumb|Portrait of William James by [[John La Farge]], {{Circa|1859}}]]
James defined [[truth|true]] beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer. His [[pragmatic theory of truth]] was a synthesis of [[correspondence theory of truth]] and [[coherence theory of truth]], with an added dimension. Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as the extent to which they "hang together", or cohere, as pieces of a puzzle might fit together; these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice.<ref name="PragTruth">James, William. 1907. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20060715031834/http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/James/James_1907/James_1907_06.html Pragmatism's Conception of Truth]" (lecture 6). pp. 76–91 in ''Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking''. New York: [[Longman]] Green and Co. Archived from the [http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/James/James_1907/James_1907_06.html original] July 15, 2006.</ref><ref>"[[Pragmatic theory of truth|Pragmatic Theory of Truth]]." pp. 427–428 in ''[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'' 6. London: [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]]. 1969.</ref>{{Blockquote|text=The most ancient parts of truth&nbsp;… also once were plastic. They also were called true for human reasons. They also mediated between still earlier truths and what in those days were novel observations. Purely objective truth, truth in whose establishment the function of giving human satisfaction in marrying previous parts of experience with newer parts played no role whatsoever, is nowhere to be found. The reasons why we call things true is the reason why they are true, for "to be true" means only to perform this marriage-function.|author=|title="[[Pragmatic theory of truth|Pragmatism's Conception of Truth]]," ''Pragmatism'' (1907), p. 83.|source=}}

James held a world view in line with [[pragmatism]], declaring that the value of any truth was utterly dependent upon its use to the person who held it. Additional tenets of James's pragmatism include the view that the world is a mosaic of diverse experiences that can only be properly interpreted and understood through an application of "[[radical empiricism]]". ''Radical empiricism'', not related to the everyday [[Empiricism|scientific empiricism]], asserts that the world and experience can never be halted for an entirely objective analysis; the mind of the observer and the act of observation affect any empirical approach to truth. The mind, its experiences, and nature are inseparable. James's emphasis on diversity as the default human condition—over and against duality, especially [[Hegelianism|Hegelian]] dialectical duality—has maintained a strong influence in American culture. James's description of the [[Mind-world relation|mind-world]] connection, which he described in terms of a "[[stream of consciousness (psychology)|stream of consciousness]]", had a direct and significant impact on [[avant-garde]] and [[modernist]] literature and art, notably in the case of [[James Joyce]].

In "What Pragmatism Means" (1906), James writes that the central point of his own doctrine of truth is, in brief:<ref name=":2">William James. 1907 [1906]. "[https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1907/James_1907_02.html What Pragmatism Means]" (lecture 2). pp. 17–32 in ''Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking''. New York: [[Longman]] Green and Co. via The Mead Project, [[Brock University]] (2007). [https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm Available] via [[Marxists Internet Archive|Marxist Internet Archive]] (2005).</ref>
<blockquote>Truths emerge from facts, but they dip forward into facts again and add to them; which facts again create or reveal new truth (the word is indifferent) and so on indefinitely. The "facts" themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them.</blockquote>[[Richard Rorty]] made the contested claim that James did not mean to give a theory of truth with this statement and that we should not regard it as such. However, other pragmatism scholars such as [[Susan Haack]] and Howard Mounce do not share Rorty's [[Instrumentalism|instrumentalist]] interpretation of James.<ref>{{cite book |author=H. O. Mounce |year=1997 |title=The two pragmatisms: from Peirce to Rorty |publisher=Psychology Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f5dQRUqk3QUC |isbn=978-0-415-15283-9}}</ref>

In ''The Meaning of Truth'' (1909), James seems to speak of truth in relativistic terms, in reference to critics of pragmatism: "The critic's trouble&nbsp;… seems to come from his taking the word 'true' irrelatively, whereas the pragmatist always means 'true for him who experiences the workings.'"<ref>James, William. 1909. ''The Meaning of Truth''. New York: [[Longman]]s, Green, & Co. p. 177.</ref>
However, James responded to critics accusing him of [[relativism]], [[skepticism]], or [[agnosticism]], and of believing only in relative truths. To the contrary, he supported an [[epistemological realism]] position.{{efn-lr|See his ''Defense of a Pragmatic Notion of Truth'', written to counter criticisms of his ''Pragmatism's Conception of Truth'' (1907) lecture.}}

=== Pragmatism and "cash value" ===
''[[Pragmatism]]'' is a philosophical approach that seeks to both define truth and resolve metaphysical issues. William James demonstrates an application of his method in the form of a simple story:<ref name="auto3">{{Cite book |last=Gunn |first=Giles |year=2000 |title=William James: Pragmatism and Other Writings |publisher=Penguin Group |pages=24–40}}</ref><ref name=":2" /> <blockquote>A live squirrel supposed to be clinging on one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree's opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught.&nbsp;The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: ''Does the man go round the squirrel or not?''</blockquote>James solves the issue by making a distinction between ''practical'' meaning. That is, the distinction between meanings of "round". ''Round'' in the sense that the man occupies the space north, east, south, and west of the squirrel; and ''round'' in the sense that the man occupies the space facing the squirrel's belly, back and sides. Depending on what the debaters meant by "going round", the answer would be clear. From this example James derives the definition of the ''pragmatic method'': to settle metaphysical disputes, one must simply make a distinction of practical consequences between notions, then, the answer is either clear, or the "dispute is idle".<ref name="auto3" />

Both James and his colleague, [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], coined the term "[[cash value]]":<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burch |first=Robert |date=June 22, 2001 |title=Charles Sanders Peirce |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200107072647/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ |access-date=December 9, 2019 |archive-date=January 7, 2020}}</ref>
<blockquote>When he said that the whole meaning of a (clear) conception consists in the entire set of its practical consequences, he had in mind that a meaningful conception must have some sort of experiential "cash value," must somehow be capable of being related to some sort of collection of possible empirical observations under specifiable conditions.</blockquote>A statement's truthfulness is verifiable through its correspondence to reality, and its observable effects of putting the idea to practice. For example, James extends his Pragmatism to the hypothesis of God: "On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true.&nbsp;… The problem is to build it out and determine it so that it will combine satisfactorily with all the other working truths."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gunn |first=Giles |year=2000 |title=William James: Pragmatism and Other Writings |publisher=Penguin Group |pages=119–132}}</ref>
From this, we also know that "new" truths must also correspond to already existent truths as well.

From the introduction by [[Bruce Kuklick]] (1981, p. xiv) to James's ''Pragmatism'':

<blockquote>James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of "true" by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitable world. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "cash value" was, and what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they were efficacious in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as [[fitness (biology)|biological fitness]].</blockquote>

James's book of lectures on pragmatism is arguably the most influential book of [[American philosophy]]. The lectures inside depict his position on the subject. In his sixth lecture, he begins by defining truth as "agreement with reality".<ref name="PragTruth" /> With this, James warns that there will be disagreements between pragmatics and intellectualists over the concepts of "agreement" and "reality", the last reasoning before thoughts settle and become autonomous for us. However, he contrasts this by supporting a more practical interpretation that: a true idea or belief is one that we can blend with our thinking so that it can be justified through experiences.<ref name="IEP">{{cite web |last=Pomerleau |first=Wayne |title=William James (1842–1910) |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=IEP |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/ |access-date=April 28, 2018}}</ref>{{blockquote|If theological ideas prove to have a value for concrete life, they will be true, for pragmatism, in the sense of being good for so much. For how much more they are true, will depend entirely on their relations to the other truths that also have to be acknowledged.|''Pragmatism'' (1907), p. 29}}

Whereby the agreement of truths with "reality" results in useful outcomes, "the 'reality' with which truths must agree has three dimensions":<ref name="IEP" /><ref name="SEP" />

# "matters of fact";
# "relations of ideas"; and
# "the entire set of other truths to which we are committed".

According to James's pragmatic approach to belief, knowledge is commonly viewed as a justified and true belief. James will accept a view if its conception of truth is analyzed and justified through interpretation, pragmatically. As a matter of fact, James's whole philosophy is of productive beliefs.

Belief in anything involves conceiving of how it is real, but disbelief is the result when we dismiss something because it contradicts another thing we think of as real. In his "Sentiment of Rationality", saying that crucial beliefs are not known is to doubt their truth, even if it seems possible. James names four "postulates of rationality" as valuable but unknowable: God, immorality, freedom, and moral duty.<ref name="IEP" /><ref>James, William. 1897 [1882] "The Sentiment of Rationality." ''The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy''. New York: [[Longman]]s, Green & Co.</ref>

In contrast, the weak side to pragmatism is that the best justification for a claim is whether it works. However, a claim that does not have outcomes cannot be justified, or unjustified, because it will not make a difference.

{{blockquote|"There can be no difference that doesn't make a difference."|''Pragmatism'' (1907), p. 45|title=|source=}}

When James moves on to then state that pragmatism's goal is ultimately "to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences", he does not clarify what he means by "practical consequences."<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=James |first=William |date=2000 |title=Pragmatism and other writings |orig-year=1842–1910 |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=0-14-043735-5 |oclc=943305535}}</ref>
On the other hand, his friend, colleague, and another key founder in establishing pragmatist beliefs, [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Charles S. Peirce]], dives deeper in defining these consequences. For Peirce, "the consequences we are concerned with are ''general'' and ''intelligible''."<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Legg |first=Catherine |date=March 14, 2019 |title=Pragmatism |website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/ |access-date=November 12, 2019}}</ref>
He further explains this in his 1878 paper "How to Make Ideas Clear," when he introduces a maxim that allows one to interpret consequences as grades of clarity and conception.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Atkin |first=Albert |title=Charles Sanders Peirce: Pragmatism |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/peircepr/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190710194332/https://www.iep.utm.edu/PeircePr/ |access-date=December 8, 2019 |archive-date=July 10, 2019}}</ref>
Describing how everything is derived from perception, Peirce uses the example of the [[Transubstantiation|doctrine of transubstantiation]] to show exactly how he defines practical consequences. [[Protestants]] interpret the bread and wine of the [[Eucharist]] is flesh and blood in only a subjective sense, while [[Catholic Church|Catholics]] would label them as actual, and divinely mystical properties of flesh via the "body, blood, soul, and divinity", even with the physical properties remaining as bread and wine in appearance. But to everyone, there can be no knowledge of the wine and bread of the Eucharist unless it is established that either wine and bread possesses certain properties or that anything that is interpreted as the blood and body of Christ is the blood and body of Christ. With this Peirce declares that "our action has exclusive reference to what affects the senses", and that we can mean nothing by transubstantiation than "what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses."<ref>Peirce, Charles S. 1878. "'How to Make Our Ideas Clear." ''[[Popular Science]] Monthly''. — (excerpt). pp. 212–218 in ''An Anthology of Nineteenth-Century American Science Writing'', edited by C. R. Resetarits. Anthem Press. 2012. {{ISBN|978-0-85728-651-2}}. {{doi|10.7135/upo9780857286512.037}}</ref>
In this sense, James's pragmatic influencer Peirce establishes that what counts as a practical consequence or effect is what can affect one's senses and what is comprehensible and fathomable in the natural world.

"Yet James never worked out his understanding of 'practical consequences' as fully as Peirce did", nor does he limit these consequences to the senses as Peirce does.<ref name=":1" /> This raises the question: what does it mean to be practical? Whether James means the greatest number of positive consequences (in light of [[utilitarianism]]), a consequence that considers other perspectives (such as his compromise of the tender and tough ways of thinking),<ref>{{Cite web |last=James |first=William |date=May 1, 2002 |title=Pragmatism |website=The Project Gutenberg EBook of Pragmatism |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm |access-date=November 12, 2019}}</ref>
or a completely different take altogether, it is unclear what consequences truly fit the pragmatic standard. The closest James comes to explaining this idea is by telling his audience to weigh the difference it would "practically make to anyone" if one opinion over the other were true, and although he attempts to clarify this, he never specifies the method by which one would weigh the difference between one opinion over the other.<ref name=":0" /> Thus, the flaw in his argument appears in that it is difficult to fathom how he would determine these practical consequences, which he continually refers to throughout his work, to be measured or interpreted. He has said that an opinion is correct that works for us humans in practice.

=== Will to believe doctrine ===
{{Main|The Will to Believe}}

In William James's 1896 lecture titled "The Will to Believe", James defends the right to violate the principle of [[evidentialism]] in order to justify hypothesis venturing. This idea foresaw 20th century objections to evidentialism and sought to ground justified belief in an unwavering principle that would prove more beneficial. Through his philosophy of [[pragmatism]] William James justifies religious beliefs by using the results of his hypothetical venturing as evidence to support the hypothesis's truth.  Therefore, this doctrine allows one to assume belief in a god and prove its existence by what the belief brings to one's life.

This was criticized by advocates of [[skeptic]]ism rationality, like [[Bertrand Russell]] in [[Free Thought and Official Propaganda]] and [[Alfred Henry Lloyd]] with [[The Will to Doubt]]. Both argued that one must always adhere to [[fallibilism]], recognizing of all human knowledge that "None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error", and that the only means of progressing ever-closer to the truth is to never assume certainty, but always examine all sides and try to reach a conclusion objectively.