How to argue with a pragmatist.

According to recently popular pragmatist views, it may be rational for one to believe p when one's evidence doesn't favour p over not-p. This may happen according to pragmatists in situations where one can gain something practically important out of believing p. In this paper, I argue that given some independently plausible assumptions about the argumentative nature of philosophy and the irrelevance of bribes for good arguments, pragmatism leads to a contradiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]