  First, his method was dialectical, such that rather than arguing in favor of any doctrine or set of doctrines, Arcesilaus restricted himself to arguing against the views proposed by his opponents or interlocutors. At first sight, this method may not look incompatible with affirming inapprehensibility and universal suspension of assent if the repeated result of practicing it was that the views argued against did not stand up to criticism. Such repeated failures could suggest that in fact nothing can be known and that one should form no beliefs at all.