Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–18 | Cite as

Friedman on suspended judgment

  • Michal Masny
Article
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

In a recent series of papers, Jane Friedman argues that suspended judgment is a sui generis first-order attitude, with a question (rather than a proposition) as its content. In this paper, I offer a critique of Friedman’s project. I begin by responding to her arguments against reductive higher-order propositional accounts of suspended judgment, and thus undercut the negative case for her own view. Further, I raise worries about the details of her positive account, and in particular about her claim that one suspends judgment about some matter if and only if one inquires into this matter. Subsequently, I use conclusions drawn from the preceding discussion to offer a tentative account: S suspends judgment about p iff (i) S believes that she neither believes nor disbelieves that p, (ii) S neither believes nor disbelieves that p, and (iii) S intends to judge that p or not-p.

Keywords

Friedman Suspension of judgment Suspended judgment Agnosticism Inquiry Belief Interrogative attitude 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Tim Williamson, Aleksander Domoslawski, Sam Clarke, Weng Kin San, and two anonymous referees for very helpful written comments and discussions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Archer, A. (2018). Wondering about what you know. Analysis, 78(4), 596–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkins, P. (2017). A Russellian account of suspended judgment. Synthese, 194(8), 3021–3046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann, M. (2005). Defeaters and higher-level requirements. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55(220), 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bugnyar, T. (2011). Knower–guesser differentiation in ravens: Others’ viewpoints matter. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1705), 634–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4(5), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, D. (2011). Disagreement, question-begging, and epistemic self-criticism. Philosopher’s Imprint, 11(6), 1–6.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, S. (2004). A solution for Russellians to a puzzle about belief. Analysis, 64(3), 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldman, R. (2000). The ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60(3), 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman, J. (2013a). Suspended judgment. Philosophical Studies, 162(2), 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, J. (2013b). Question-directed attitudes. Philosophical Perspectives, 27(1), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman, J. (2017). Why suspend judging? Nous, 51(2), 302–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, J. (forthcoming). Inquiry and belief. Nous.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12222.
  13. Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P. H., & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions? What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human–robotic relationship. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. (1988). Children’s understanding of representational change and its relation to understanding of false belief and the appearance-reality distinction. Child Development, 59(1), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, M. (1995). Self-deception and the nature of mind. In C. MacDonald & G. MacDonald (Eds.), Philosophy of psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese, 19(1), 178–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaplan, D. (2013). De re belief. The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series, 9, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, N. (2012). Disagreement: What’s the problem? Or a good peer is hard to find. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(2), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kornblith, H. (2010). Belief in the face of controversy. In R. Feldman & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kovacs, A. M., Teglas, E., & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krupenye, C., Kano, F., Hirata, S., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science, 354(6308), 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGlynn, A. (2014). Knowledge first?. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moon, A. (2018). The nature of doubt and a new puzzle about belief, doubt, and confidence. Synthese, 195(4), 1827–1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308(5719), 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Russell, B. (1997). What is an agnostic? In J. Slater (Ed.), Bertrand Russell: His Works,volume 11: Last philosophical testament (pp. 1943–1968). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Salmon, N. (1989). Illogical belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 243–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott-Kakures, D. (1994). On belief and captivity of the will. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sturgeon, S. (2010). Confidence and coarse-grained attitudes. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sung, J., Guo, L., Grinter, R., & Christensen, H. (2007). “My Roomba is my Rambo”: Intimate home appliances. In Proceedings of UbiComp 2007.Google Scholar
  31. Tillman, C. (2005). A Millian propositional guise for one puzzling English gal. Analysis, 65(3), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wedgwood, R. (2002). The aim of belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 267–297.Google Scholar
  33. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitcomb, D. (2010). Curiosity was framed. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(3), 664–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams, B. (1970). Deciding to believe. In Howard E. Kiefer & Milton K. Munitz (Eds.), Language, belief, and metaphysics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  36. Winters, B. (1979). Believing at will. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations