Epistemologists often describe subjects as being capable of adopting a third kind of categorical doxastic stance regarding whether something is the case, besides belief and disbelief. They deploy a variety of idioms in order to ascribe that stance. In this paper, I flesh out the properties that the third kind of categorical stance is supposed to have and start searching for the best ways to ascribe it. The idioms ‘suspends judgment about whether’ and ‘is agnostic about whether’, among others, are (...) found to be unfit to play the desired role. In the end, I suggest that ‘is in doubt as to whether’ is our best choice among the alternatives surveyed here. (shrink)

Can someone who suspends judgement about a certain proposition <p> be in a relational state of disagreement with someone who believes <p> as well as with some- one who disbelieves <p>? This paper argues for an af- firmative answer. It develops an account of the notions of suspended judgement and disagreement that explains how and why the suspender is in a relational state of disagreement with both the believer and the disbeliever about the very same proposition <p>. More specifically, the (...) paper first provides a characterisation of the norma- tive profile associated with the state of suspended judge- ment in terms of the set of normative commitments that it engenders in the context of inquiry. It then provides a characterisation of the notion of disagreement in terms the incompatibility between the sets of normative com- mitments characteristic of the three states in question— belief, disbelief, and suspension. (shrink)

Our doxastic states are our belief-like states, and these include outright doxastic states and degreed doxastic states. The former include believing that p, having the opinion that p, thinking that p, being sure that p, being certain that p, and doubting that p. The latter include degrees of confidence, credences, and perhaps some phenomenal states. But we also have conviction (being convinced simpliciter that p) and degrees of conviction (being more or less convinced that p). This volume shows: how and (...) why all of the outright doxastic states mentioned above can be reduced to conviction thresholds; what degrees of conviction fundamentally are (degreed reliance-dispositions); why degrees of conviction are not credences; when suspending a belief is compatible with continuing to believe; and the surprising extent to which Kant endorsed the theory of conviction that emerges in this volume. (shrink)

Computational models have shown how polarisation can rise among deliberating agents as they approximate epistemic rationality. This paper provides further support for the thesis that polarisation can rise under condition of epistemic rationality, but it does not depend on limitations that extant models rely on, such as memory restrictions or biased evaluation of other agents’ testimony. Instead, deliberation is modelled through agents’ purposeful introduction of arguments and their rational reactions to introductions of others. This process induces polarisation dynamics on its (...) own. A second result is that the effect size of polarisation dynamics correlates with particular types of argumentative behaviour. Polarisation effects can be soothed when agents take into account the opinions of others as premises, and they are amplified as agents fortify their own beliefs. These results underpin the relevance of argumentation as a factor in social-epistemic processes and indicate that rising issue polarisation is not a reliable indicator of epistemic shortcomings. (shrink)

“Suspension of judgment” is an ambiguous term that may refer either to a doxastic state (“suspended judgment”) or to a doxastic action (“suspending judgment”). Based on a simple non-belief account, this paper presents a formal study of both aspects of suspension. We first introduce the notion of a suspension set (a set of non-beliefs) and determine its logical structure. Then we present the classical AGM operations of belief revision and belief contraction and give characterizations of them that refer to suspension (...) sets rather than belief sets. Finally, we study the suspension operation, a symmetric cousin of belief contraction, and characterize it both in terms of belief sets and in terms of suspension sets. Belief contraction and belief suspension thereby get reinterpreted as two different forms of the expansion of suspension sets. The project is interesting because in contrast to belief revision and belief contraction, the suspension operation is symmetric with respect to negation: suspending judgment on _A_ is the same as suspending judgment on $$\lnot A$$. Most of our results are premised on an assumption of modesty: For every person with consistent beliefs, there is always at least one proposition on which she suspends judgment. (shrink)

This paper establishes a connection between the fields of machine learning (ML) and philosophy concerning the phenomenon of behaving neutrally. It investigates a specific class of ML systems capable of delivering a neutral response to a given task, referred to as abstaining machine learning systems, that has not yet been studied from a philosophical perspective. The paper introduces and explains various abstaining machine learning systems, and categorizes them into distinct types. An examination is conducted on how abstention in the different (...) machine learning system types aligns with the epistemological counterpart of suspended judgment, addressing both the nature of suspension and its normative profile. Additionally, a philosophical analysis is suggested on the autonomy and explainability of the abstaining response. It is argued, specifically, that one of the distinguished types of abstaining systems is preferable as it aligns more closely with our criteria for suspended judgment. Moreover, it is better equipped to autonomously generate abstaining outputs and offer explanations for abstaining outputs when compared to the other type. (shrink)

As scholars have commonly observed, a central difference between epistemic and practical normativity is the fact that the reasons of the former kind balance prohibitively, while reasons of the latter kind do so permissively. To explain the prohibition to believe or disbelieve in the face of tied evidence, several scholars have appealed to normative reasons in favour of a third doxastic option, the suspension of judgement. However, the question remains as to what happens if these latter reasons are defeated. In (...) such cases, one seems to be stuck in an impasse: either one is forced into an epistemic dilemma– where neither of one’s doxastic options seems permissible– or one must relax the prohibitive balancing principle– where there might be, after all, situations in which believing in the face of tied evidence is rationally permissible. In this paper, I discuss different ways to derive this puzzle of defeated suspension, as well as the most common strategy in responding to it. I argue that an appeal to undefeated reasons to suspend judgement comes with significant downsides and, thus, one should seek a different response: in extreme forms of the puzzle of defeated suspension, a form of higher-order suspension becomes rational. If one treats higher-order suspension as an additional doxastic option, one can avoid the puzzle in its entirety. Furthermore, an analogue puzzle of higher-order doubt merits the same treatment. (shrink)

This article is an investigation of the nature of suspension of judgement as it is conceived by Sextus Empiricus. I carry out this investigation by examining what I take to be Sextus’ most pertinent remarks on the topic and by considering them in the context of contemporary philosophical work on the nature of suspension. Against the more frequently encountered idea that Sextus is operating with a privative conception of suspension, I argue that Sextus instead has a metacognitive account of suspension, (...) whereby suspending constitutively involves acknowledging that one is not in a position to tell whether or not p. (shrink)

Alexandra Zinke argues that there are different ways of justifying suspension of judgment. In Zinke (Theoria 87:1050–1066, 2021), she claims that one suspends judgment not only as a result of a lack of evidence (_privatively_) but also _positively_, that is because there is evidence that provides reasons for suspending judgment. Zinke’s argument suggests that suspension goes beyond being a rational default in cases of insufficient evidence. I align with Zinke’s perspective on affirming that agnosticism is not simply a fallback position. (...) Yet, I argue that her attempt to justify it through positive evidence fails. However, this paper argues that (i) the vagueness and chance-driven evidences of agnosticism espoused by Zinke exhibit non-rational aspects. I will draw parallels between these evidences and Bayesian agnosticism articulated by Fraassen (Analysis 58:212–220, 1998), as well as the degrees of belief account expounded by Hájek (Analysis 58:199–206, 1998) to show these aspects and contend that Zinke’s evidences align with certain trivialities clarified within the aforementioned conceptual frameworks and (ii) due to the unique nature of agnosticism, the relationship between agnosticism, evidence, and rationality takes place on a different ground from theism and atheism. Therefore, even if there is no positive evidence for agnosticism, it is still justified by a reference to two truth conditions: belief and awareness. (shrink)