Noûs 55 (2):463-484 (2021)

Matthew McGrath
Washington University in St. Louis
Epistemologists often claim that in addition to belief and disbelief there is a third, neutral, doxastic attitude. Various terms are used: ‘suspending judgment’, ‘withholding’, ‘agnosticism’. It is also common to claim that the factors relevant to the justification of these attitudes are epistemic in the narrow sense of being factors that bear on the strength or weakness of one’s epistemic position with respect to the target proposition. This paper addresses two challenges to such traditionalism about doxastic attitudes. The first concerns the relevance of non-epistemic factors we might call "future-comparative" – e.g., that you’ll have more decisive evidence on whether p tomorrow – to the justification of suspending judgment. The second, from Jane Friedman, is to explain the point of the neutral attitude without appealing to inquiry and thus taking goal-related factors, which are not epistemic, such as the value of the goal or the prospects for finding means to achieve it, to bear on the justification of the neutral attitude. My defense of traditionalism relies on distinguishing three ways of being neutral on a question: agnosticism, inquiry and suspension of judgment. Traditionalism is saved because, of these, agnosticism alone is a genuine doxastic attitude.
Keywords suspension of judgment  belief  inquiry
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/nous.12323
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Elusive Knowledge.David K. Lewis - 1996 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):549 – 567.
Doxastic Deliberation.Nishi Shah & J. David Velleman - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (4):497-534.
Why Suspend Judging?Jane Friedman - 2017 - Noûs 51 (2):302-326.
Suspended Judgment.Jane Friedman - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (2):165-181.
The Aim of Belief.Ralph Wedgwood - 2002 - Philosophical Perspectives 16:267-97.

View all 30 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Thinking and Being Sure.Jeremy Goodman & Ben Holguín - forthcoming - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:1-27.
Inquiring Minds Want to Improve.Arianna Falbo - forthcoming - Australasian Journal of Philosophy.
Disbelief is a distinct doxastic attitude.Joshua Smart - 2020 - Synthese 198 (12):11797-11813.
Agnosticism as Settled Indecision.Verena Wagner - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):671-697.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

De Opschorting van Het Oordeel.Jan Willem Wieland - 2016 - Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 108 (1):3-17.
Rational Agnosticism and Degrees of Belief.Jane Friedman - 2013 - Oxford Studies in Epistemology 4:57.
Why Suspend Judging?Jane Friedman - 2017 - Noûs 51 (2):302-326.
Kaplan on Quine and Suspension of Judgment.Herbert Heidelberger - 1974 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (4):441 - 443.
Suspension-to-Suspension Justification Principles.Peter Murphy - forthcoming - Belgrade Philosophical Annual:55-72.
Sceptical Rationality.Jan Willem Wieland - 2014 - Analytic Philosophy 55 (1):222-238.
Friedman on Suspended Judgment.Michal Masny - 2020 - Synthese 197 (11):5009-5026.
Checking Again.Jane Friedman - 2019 - Philosophical Issues 29 (1):84-96.
Suspending Judgment the Correct Way.Luis Rosa - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.


Added to PP index

Total views
606 ( #13,492 of 2,504,875 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
139 ( #4,726 of 2,504,875 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes