forum for week of 12 September

I believe that Clifford's argument is well-founded, if not worded in quite the way which he means to purvey it. What I glean from Clifford's argument of not believing anything without sufficient evidence is simply that we shouldn't believe something if the evidence for it is not there or properly convincing. James argues that if one goes by Clifford's argument, one will not be able to fully live one's life and will be in a constant state of paranoia. If you take Clifford's argument completely literally then I think that this would be something of a conundrum, but Clifford isn't saying that something has to be proven and without an ounce of doubt in order to believe it, he's simply saying one should have the proper information before one believes something, a practice which I personally believe is integral if one is to ever make informed decisions. After reading both arguments, I've come to the conclusion that while Clifford is more likely to miss out on something because of a lack of trust of others and the information presented to him, this is far superior to the stance of James which provides ample opportunity to be taken advantage and made a fool of.