Should philosophers believe what they write? It might seem obvious that the answer is 'yes.' Cases where academics submit 'hoax' articles to journals, for example, suggest a norm that academics should endorse the work they write and (perhaps especially) publish. However, the issue is more complicated than it initially seems; I argue that our objections to hoaxers and other cases can be explained in terms of obligations to defend what one writes, where this doesn't necessarily require believing it. In fact, requiring philosophers to believe their arguments might be bad for the profession--and make it harder for more epistemically virtuous philosophers to enter into professional philosophy. To explain why, I discuss the role that self-confidence and self-trust play in philosophy, and the ways in which certain philosophical practices can undermine these.