There are numerous different ways in which the passage from James (section IV below) can be analyzed in detail. There is, however, an overall shape to the argument, about which I do not believe that much reasonable disagreement is possible. In section I below, I give a summary analysis in which I try to make clear what this shape is. In the next section (II), I restate in simplified form each sentence of the passage that makes or implies a statement, and identify what seem to me the statuses that can plausibly be assigned to it: “P” for “premise,” “IC” for “intermediate conclusion,” “FC” for “final conclusion,” and “N” for “not a logical constituent of the argument.” In section III, I provide a detailed analysis of the argument, based on what I take to be the most plausible choices among the possibilities (of which, as I said, there are several).

---

The argument of the passage is an argument from examples (see A Rulebook for Arguments, ch. 2): James presents several instances in which the possibility of a certain fact’s coming into existence depends on someone’s antecedent belief in that fact; these instances support the conclusion that there are such cases; and from that conclusion, James draws the further (and final) conclusion that any “logic” (like Clifford’s “ethics of belief”) that holds it to be always immoral to believe something in the absence of evidence for it is absurd. Thus any defensible analysis of the argument of the passage should, I believe, have approximately the following form:

1. Whether you like me depends on whether I believe that you must like me. (Sentences 1–5)
   
2. Whether a man wins a woman’s love depends on whether he believes that she must love him. (Sentences 6–8)
   
3. Whether a man wins rewards in professional life depends on whether he believes that he will win them. (Sentences 9–10)
   
4. Whether a social organism coheres and achieves what it is supposed to achieve depends on each of its members’ doing his or her part believing that the other members will do theirs. (Sentences 11–15)
   
5. Thus, there are many cases in which something’s being true depends on the belief, prior to any evidence, that it is true. (Intermediate conclusion, from 1–4: sentence 16)
6. Therefore, any logic that holds it to be immoral to believe something in the absence of evidence for it is an insane logic. (Final conclusion, from 5: sentence 17)

This analysis does not discuss any detail of the argument beyond steps 1–4, but presents those steps as premises. In the more detailed analysis below (section III), they are identified as conclusions from premises that are more specific and limited statements.

---

JAMES		ANALYSIS
[1] Turn now to a certain class of questions of fact, questions concerning personal relations, states of mind between one man and another.		(No statement expressed or implied: N)
[2] Do you like me or not?—for example.		(No statement expressed or implied: N)
[3] Whether you like me or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation.		In many cases, whether you like me or not depends on whether I assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. (P)
[4] The previous faith on my part in your liking’s existence is in such cases what makes your liking come.		In such cases [i.e., in cases in which whether you like me depends on, etc.], my faith that you will like me is what makes you like me. (P; or IC, from 3, or from 3 and 5)
[5] But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt, as the absolutists say, ad extorquendum assensum meum [to compel my assent], ten to one your liking never comes.		If I refuse to believe that you like me until I have objective evidence that you do so, it is most likely that you will not like me. (IC, from 3; or P)
[6] How many women’s hearts are vanquished by the mere sanguine insistence of some man that they must love him!		The love of many a woman is won by a man through his confidence that she must love him. (P)
[7] He will not consent to the hypothesis that they cannot.		(Restatement or elaboration of 6: P or N)
[8] The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth’s existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts.		In such cases [i.e., in cases in which a woman’s love is won, etc.], and in innumerable others, the desire for a certain truth brings about the existence of that truth. (IC, from 6–7 and 9–10; or P)
[9] Who gains promotions, boons, appointments, but the man in whose life they are seen to play the part of live hypotheses, who discounts them, sacrifices other things for their sake before they have come, and takes risks for them in advance?		The man who gains promotions, boons, appointments, and so on, is the man who treats them as live hypotheses. (P)
[10] His faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.		The faith of such a man [i.e., a man who gains, etc.] causes itself to come true [i.e., his faith that he will gain certain rewards brings it about that he does gain them]. (IC, from 9; or P)
[11] A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs.		Any social organism is what it is because each of its members does his duty trusting that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. (P; or IC, from 13, 14, and 15)
[12] Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned.		The achievement of a desired result by the cooperation of many independent persons is a consequence of the faith of each person in the others [i.e., a social organism achieves a desired result because each member does his part trusting that the others will do theirs]. (P; or IC, from 13, 14, and 15)
[13] A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted.		A government, an army, (etc.) cannot exist and cannot achieve or even attempt anything unless each member does his part trusting the others to do theirs. (P; or IC, from 11 and/or 12; or N, as mere illustration of 11 and 12)
[14] A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before any one else backs him up.		A whole train of passengers can be robbed by a few highwaymen because the latter can count on each other to do their part, while the former cannot. (P; or IC, from 11 and/or 12; or N, as mere illustration of 11 and 12)
[15] If we believed that the whole car-full would rise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even be attempted.		If each passenger in the train believed that the others would rise with him to repel the robbers, all would do so, and train robbery would not even be attempted. (P; or IC, from 11 and/or 12)
[16] There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming.		There are cases in which a fact cannot come into existence unless a preliminary faith exists that it will come into existence. (IC, from several of the above, depending on your analysis; or FC, if regarded as part of a single statement with 17)
[17] And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the “lowest kind of immorality” into which a thinking being can fall.		In a case in which a fact’s coming into being depends on the faith that it will come into being, any logic that says that it is immoral to believe something without having evidence for it is an insane logic. (FC, from 16; or N, if regarded as an independent statement)

---

Numbers in parentheses refer to the sentences of the passage from which my paraphrases are derived.

Example 1: liking someone

(3)	In many cases, whether you like me or not depends on whether I assume that you must like me. (P)
(5)	In such cases, if I refuse to believe that you like me until I have objective evidence that you do so, it is most likely that you will not like me. (P)
(4)	In such cases, my faith that you will like me is what makes you like me. (IC, from 3 and 5)

 
Example 2: romantic attachment

(6)	The love of many a woman is won by a man through his confidence that she must love him. (P)

Example 3: professional success

(9)	The man who gains promotions, boons, appointments, and so on, is the man who treats them as live hypotheses. (P)
(10)	The faith of such a man causes itself to come true [i.e., his faith that he will gain certain rewards brings it about that he does gain them]. (IC, from 9)
(8)	In innumerable cases, the desire for a certain truth brings about the existence of that truth. (IC, from 6 and 10)

Example 4: social organisms

(13)	A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, or an athletic team cannot exist and cannot achieve or even attempt anything unless each member does his part trusting the others to do theirs. (P)
(14)	A whole train of passengers can be robbed by a few highwaymen because the latter can count on each other to do their part, while the former cannot. (P)
(15)	If each passenger in the train believed that the others would rise with him to repel the robbers, all would do so, and train robbery would not even be attempted. (P)
(11)	Any social organism is what it is because each of its members does his duty trusting that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. (IC, from 13, 14, and 15)
(12)	The achievement of a desired result by the cooperation of many independent persons is a consequence of the faith of each person in the others [i.e., a social organism achieves a desired result because each member does his part trusting that the others will do theirs]. (IC, from 13, 14, and 15)

Pulling the examples together:

(16)	There are cases in which a fact cannot come into existence unless a preliminary faith exists that it will come into existence. (IC, from 4, 8, 10, 11, and 12)
(17)	In any such case, any logic that says that it is immoral to believe something without having evidence for it is an insane logic. (FC; from 16)

---

The passage is from William James, “The Will to Believe” (PDF file, pp. 4–5).

        [1] Turn now to a certain class of questions of fact, questions concerning personal relations, states of mind between one man and another. [2] Do you like me or not?—for example. [3] Whether you do or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you half-way, am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. [4] The previous faith on my part in your liking’s existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. [5] But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt, as the absolutists say, ad extorquendum assensum meum [to compel my assent], ten to one your liking never comes. [6] How many women’s hearts are vanquished by the mere sanguine insistence of some man that they must love him! [7] He will not consent to the hypothesis that they cannot. [8] The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth’s existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts. [9] Who gains promotions, boons, appointments, but the man in whose life they are seen to play the part of live hypotheses, who discounts them, sacrifices other things for their sake before they have come, and takes risks for them in advance? [10] His faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.
        [11] A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. [12] Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. [13] A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted. [14] A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before any one else backs him up. [15] If we believed that the whole car-full would rise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even be attempted. [16] There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming. [17] And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the “lowest kind of immorality” into which a thinking being can fall.