He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equall

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. I think this is highly relevant considering the times we live in (identity politics, nationalism, feminism, polarization of opinions and beliefs).