It is common to think of what is going on when we suspend judgment primarily in terms of a kind of doxastic state or attitude, typically called ‘suspended judgment’. Significant questions then arise concerning the nature, content and cognitive role of such states. And the project of answering these questions has been pursued by a number of writers in recent years, most notably Jane Friedman.

In this paper, I argue that this project rests on a mistake. Discourse concerning states of suspended judgment is largely equivocal and confused. And suspending judgment itself ought to be understood, not as a matter of being in, or coming to be in, any particular kind of doxastic state, but as a matter of refraining from judging. I end by exploring some of the consequences that this should be taken to have for recent work on suspending judgment.