Abstract

Pragmatists (such as William James) recommend optimism as a successful strategy, and recent psychological research has confirmed its value. But optimism comes at a price: optimists are less accurate in their assessments and expectations than are pessimists. Thus optimism ‘proves itself to be good in the way of belief’, and by pragmatic standards should count as true; but that makes the accuracy costs of optimism invisible (the problem is only exacerbated by Rorty's recommendation that pragmatists stop speaking of truth altogether). The problem prevents pragmatists from offering a Darwinian explanation of why pessimism survives, and also blocks any pragmatist account of the well‐documented and highly successful exploratory behavior of many animal species.