I’m guessing the strength of your judge and the role it plays depends on your openness, in the big 5 sense.
For me there is a two step process. Even if the arguments for something aren’t strong, I can “entertain” an idea, if that idea is related to something important. That idea might hang around for a long time, accruing evidence for and against it in my experience and as I think about it more. Only when it passes the judge do you confidently go around stating it. You can see the start of this type of entertaining in this post.
A few thoughts.
It seems that the judge often has a big part to play in protecting the epistemolgy.
I’m guessing the strength of your judge and the role it plays depends on your openness, in the big 5 sense.
For me there is a two step process. Even if the arguments for something aren’t strong, I can “entertain” an idea, if that idea is related to something important. That idea might hang around for a long time, accruing evidence for and against it in my experience and as I think about it more. Only when it passes the judge do you confidently go around stating it. You can see the start of this type of entertaining in this post.