This paper interprets and evaluates James’s three epistemological criticisms in his "The Will to Believe" of Clifford’s conclusion in his "The Ethics of Belief" that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." It is pointed out that James’s criticisms contain plausible theses, even though they fail to overthrow, and can only moderate, Clifford’s conclusion. It is also pointed out that James should not be interpreted as aiming to overthrow Clifford’s conclusion completely, because he shares with Clifford certain substantial epistemological theses, such as that intellectual factors like evidence play the role of providing justification for beliefs, and it is clear that the latter thesis is central to Clifford’s conclusion.