In fact, the willingness to accept a particular position tentatively as the best explanation seems to bypass the problem of being able to actually withhold judgment in all cases.
No. In many instances there is no best explanation. In such cases judgement
is withheld until enough evidence accumulates. My position is then "I don't know". In these case I am clear about my lack of clarity; certain of my uncertainty; and staunchly determined as to my indeterminate position.
So, when you say you don't believe anything, but accept things as the best, current explanation are referring only to those acceptances you have consciously considered, or to every possible "belief-like" attitude that you might hold? Aren't there (possibly) just some things you believe without refection?
An interesting question. I think (not believe, or accept) that my acceptance is, certainly now, automatic as it is a pragmatic choice.
For example, I have about fifteen large, mature trees flanking the driveway to my house. I am conscious that at some point one or more of these trees may fall across the driveway. (A large bough, some 10" in diameter, did fall at the end of last year.) One might say that it is my practice to believe all that one might reasonably believe about large old trees, strong winds and gravity. This is a practical position to take and minimises the risk that I shall be killed by a falling tree by moving down the drive. However, at the back of my mind is always the possibility that I am lying in a coma, experiencing a realistic dream, etc. Hence, I accept the physics of falling trees as the most likely explanation, but not more.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this approach seems more like a skill that you have developed, instead of a propositional attitude (which is how some would describe a belief). On the other hand, if it is a propositional attitude, then why wouldn't this approach simply mean you believe things with a consciously chosen credence value of say, .7 or something? If beliefs come in degrees, then why not say you believe things, but refrain from asserting too much confidence?
Why not? Because it strikes me as silly and precipitate. Off the top of my head I see two distinct negatives regarding beliefs.
Firstly, many people appear to attract beliefs like a woolen sweater attracts cat hairs in a kitten farm. Minimal discretion is applied to their selection. No systematic analysis is applied. The beliefs are often woolly, inconsistent and contradictory. That doesn't seem a sound basis for the elements of a personal philosophy.
Secondly, by choosing a belief on increases the danger that one will hold that belief regardless of changing circumstances and evidence.
So it is objective in the sense that you are always open to further evidence?
While that is true, the major objectivity lies in the fact that no concept is accepted (provisionally) until it emerges as a clear front runner.
Nicely done. This is such a unique position, to me. How did you come upon this approach? Is there some reading you can direct me towards. Or, do you tentatively accept that it originated with you?
I have not, to my recollection, seen or heard this idea espoused by others.
I don't keep a formal journal, but I know from random notes that many of my ideas precede my months, years, or even decades their everyday adoption. In the interim I quite forget about them. I suspect it first emerged here on CF in response to my perception of problems with the concept of belief. As I type that I do recall earlier partial expressions of the idea on other forums. Perhaps it has been present implicitly for some time, but interactions on this and other forums have pushed me to formalise and verbalise it.
That's all rather rambling and I apologise for any lack of clarity, but I hope it addresses your questions adequately.