Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
What are you allowed to believe?
Should your beliefs always match your evidence—or is there room for faith, hope, or other considerations when the evidence runs out?
In this video, I introduce my new debate book (with Scott Stapleford), Must Beliefs and Evidence Agree?, which explores one of the central questions in epistemology: are we ever permitted to believe beyond the evidence?
Stapleford defends a strict evidentialist view: if your belief doesn’t match your evidence, it’s a mistake. I defend a more permissive view: while evidence matters, it may not determine a single rational response in every case.
This book presents both sides in full, followed by replies and counter-replies—giving you a front-row seat to a live philosophical debate about rational belief, disagreement, faith, and intellectual responsibility.
If you’ve ever wondered:
👉 Can I believe something if the evidence is unclear?
👉 Is faith irrational?
👉 Do we always have one “correct” belief?
…this debate is for you.
📘 Buy the book: amazon.com/Must-Beliefs-Evidence-Agree-Questions/dp/0367468247
📄 Read a sample (PhilPapers): philpapers.org/rec/STAMBA-4
Let me know what you think in the comments:
👉 Should belief always follow evidence?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my website: liz-jackson.com
For more on my research: liz-jackson.com/research
For popular-level interviews, podcasts, and blog posts I’ve done: liz-jackson.com/public-philosophy
Follow me on social media:
Twitter: twitter.com/lizjackson111
Instagram: instagram.com/lizjackson111
Facebook: facebook.com/lizjackson111
What are you allowed to believe?
Should your beliefs always match your evidence—or is there room for faith, hope, or other considerations when the evidence runs out?
In this video, I introduce my new debate book (with Scott Stapleford), Must Beliefs and Evidence Agree?, which explores one of the central questions in epistemology: are we ever permitted to believe beyond the evidence?
Stapleford defends a strict evidentialist view: if your belief doesn’t match your evidence, it’s a mistake. I defend a more permissive view: while evidence matters, it may not determine a single rational response in every case.
This book presents both sides in full, followed by replies and counter-replies—giving you a front-row seat to a live philosophical debate about rational belief, disagreement, faith, and intellectual responsibility.
If you’ve ever wondered:
👉 Can I believe something if the evidence is unclear?
👉 Is faith irrational?
👉 Do we always have one “correct” belief?
…this debate is for you.
📘 Buy the book: amazon.com/Must-Beliefs-Evidence-Agree-Questions/dp/0367468247
📄 Read a sample (PhilPapers): philpapers.org/rec/STAMBA-4
Let me know what you think in the comments:
👉 Should belief always follow evidence?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my website: liz-jackson.com
For more on my research: liz-jackson.com/research
For popular-level interviews, podcasts, and blog posts I’ve done: liz-jackson.com/public-philosophy
Follow me on social media:
Twitter: twitter.com/lizjackson111
Instagram: instagram.com/lizjackson111
Facebook: facebook.com/lizjackson111
