Right to believe
Well, the thought goes something like this: that in believing p, I implicitly think that it's true. (It's hard to make sense of the alternative.) If it turns out not to be true, then not only do I have no reson to believe it - I have in addition a reason not to. Hence to continue to believe it would be irrational.

As for a right to believe - well, that follows from the above. If I believe that p, and someone demonstrates the falsity, it's hard to see how I could plausibly claim that, that demonstration notwithstanding, I'm still going to continue to believe p.

What it boils down to is a basic claim that we have an obligation to believe all and only true things...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 4 Jul 2008, 15:58, Reply)