Suspension of Judgment as a Doxastic Default
Abstract In Outlines of Skeptical-Dogmatism , Mark Walker argues for Skeptical-Dogmatism about philosophical views—i.e., he argues that we should disbelieve most philosophical views. Walker argues for Skeptical-Dogmatism over both Dogmatism and Skepticism. In response, I defend Skepticism—i.e., the view that we should neither believe nor disbelieve most philosophical views. I argue that Walker’s arguments overlook some of the most plausible forms of philosophical Skepticism where the Skeptic suspends judgment about most disputed philosophical views without assigning a credence of 0.5 to those views. In doing so, I argue that suspension of judgment is the default justified doxastic attitude—i.e., the doxastic attitude one is epistemically justified in adopting absent any reason to do otherwise. I also champion Skepticism by offering modified versions of some of Walker’s thought experiments, posing challenges for Skeptical-Dogmatism, and arguing that Skepticism and Skeptical-Dogmatism share some common benefits.
Authors
- Mark Satta (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9630-1339)
Institutions
- Wayne State University (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
- Published
- 2024-10-04
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-bja10090
- Primary Topic
- Legal principles and applications
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00