Consider now the case of a man dying of thirst in a desert. He comes upon two water sources. He knows (never mind how) that one is potable while the other is poisonous. But he does not know which is which, and he has no way of finding out. Should the man suspend belief, even unto death, since he has insufficient evidence for deciding between the two water sources?
My two cents
I have needed this for a long time. It would be like me and some guy from RationalWiki walking in the desert. I’ll need to remember this one.
Vallicella, B. (2011). Practical and Evidential Aspects of Rationality: Is it Ever Rational to Believe Beyond the Evidence? Available: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/05/practical-and-evidential-aspects-of-rationality.html. Last accessed 15th May 2011.