To every thesis one can oppose a contrary thesis of equal strength.

Supports

For each claim I take to be true, I can find contrary reasons of comparable force: the senses vary from one witness to another, and every proof rests on a further proof that is itself open to dispute.
But when the case for and against are in balance, nothing justifies leaning to one side rather than the other: that would be to choose without reason.
To affirm regardless would be to add a belief the reasons do not support, and so to be mistaken about what one is entitled to take as settled.

Therefore Therefore the most lucid course is to suspend judgment, wherever no decisive reason settles the matter.

How far does this reasoning convince you?

Not at all

Entirely

Deepenings

Why does the contrary always have "equal force"?

The ancient skeptics catalogue "modes" that reopen the debate on any subject: the persistent disagreement among the learned, the variation of perceptions across observers, the fact that every proof demands a proof.
As long as these levers remain available, no thesis prevails without a counterweight being available against it: the balance is no accident, it is the rule.

How far does this reasoning convince you?

Not at all

Entirely

Put to the test

Objection