How is pragmatism different from evidentialism in the context of beliefs? Which side are you on?
In evidentialism one must not believe an unsupported belief because it is said that though it is instrumentally wrong it always has bad consequences. The reason here is lack of sufficient evidences. Also the evidences here may not necessarily be authentic and can be just a feeling. For eg. I strictly believe that there are no people on mars just because I have not seen it. These evidences are sufficient for me to believe.
While in pragmatism, unsupported belief is allowed as the consequences at that moment is considered and not the previous evidences. Here practicality of the consequences of the belief is considered and not the availability of sufficient evidences. Like for the above eg. If a scientist can prove that there can be people on mars by putting forward some theories or conclusions then it can be believed by me that there are people over there.
So, I am not on the side of evidentialism because I feel that having a belief doesn’t mean having “sufficient evidences”.