 In defining the Academy only by its critical method, rather than also by its acceptance of any epistemological positions, Philo recognized a value in argument on either side that was independent of the conclusions or acts of suspension it yielded: its ability to cultivate in others autonomy in dialectical reasoning. In the periods of both his mitigated skepticism and his fallibilism, Philo argued on either side in order to judge whether some philosophical view merited his assent (see  sections 3.3–3.4).  To this end he accepted rational norms of criticism (cf. D. Frede 1996), so that he was obliged to disregard illicit sources of persuasion: e.g., performative aspects of a speaker’s presentation of arguments, or a speaker’s reputation (unless their reputation is cited as a reason for belief). Thus we find in Philonian sources an analysis of the sources of authority and arguments against epistemic deference (see Cicero Ac. 2.9, 2.115 and Topica 72–8; cf. Sextus PH 2.37–46 &amp; M 7.314–42). The evidence suggests that Philo sought to protect auditors from his own authority, by concealing his judgments about arguments on either side. At any rate, Academics who are associated with Philo or the mitigated skepticism he popularized (e.g., Charmadas, Cicero, and Favorinus) concealed their evaluations of arguments, on the grounds that their auditors would be better situated to follow the rational norms of criticism (see Cicero On the Orator 1.84, Ac. 2.60, On the Nature of the Gods 1.10–11, On Divination 2.150, Tusculan Disputations 5.11 &amp; 5.83, On Fate 1, and Galen On the Best Method of Teaching).