The Epistemology of Truth-Value Gaps

Abstract:

There is an obvious sense in which, if it is true that p, then you ought to believe that p, and if it is false that p, then you ought to disbelieve that p.  My question in this talk is: in that same sense, if it is neither true nor false that p, what ought you to believe? (I do not assume that any proposition actually is neither true nor false, but I assume we can make enough sense of that idea to ask what you ought to believe in that situation.) I consider several possible answers, including that you ought to suspend judgment about whether p and that you ought to disbelieve that p, before arguing that it is sometimes permissible to believe that p when it is neither true nor false that p.