My claim, in summary, is that methodological doubt is only half of what we need. Yes, we need the systematic, disciplined, and conscious attempts to criticize everything no matter how compelling it might seem—to find flaws or contradictions we might otherwise miss. But thinking is not trustworthy unless it also includes methodological belief: the equally systematic, disciplined, and conscious attempt to believe everything no matter how unlikely or repellent it might seem—to find virtues or strengths we might otherwise miss. Both processes derive their power from the very fact that they are methodological: artificial, systematic, and disciplined uses of the mind. As methods, they help us see what we would miss if we only used our minds naturally or spontaneously. (257-258)

A process seems to be suggested in this paragraph on "believing."

1. Believing comes first—as a reader, give the author the benefit of the doubt from the beginning. Approach a piece by saying, "Okay, let’s see what this author has to say."
2. Read carefully with an eye to believing—start with the title, pre-read (introduction and conclusion, headers, topic sentences, etc.), take notes, summarize, etc., under the assumption that the author does have a valid point and that your job as reader is to help the author make that point.
3. Reflect on the entire piece: what is the one, single claim the author is making and how can divisions in the piece be seen to be making that point? Perhaps write a quick outline.

As for "doubting," perhaps there is also a process or at least guidelines.

1. Start with the work you’ve done. Look at your "believing" notes and ask yourself whether the argument is as valid as it seems. That is, are there claims that are unsubstantiated and/or are there assumptions which seem unreasonable? What are they?
2. Try to understand how and why the argument is weak—does the author have a particular agenda? For example, someone working in management would have a different view of the necessity of employee surveillance than would someone working for a labor union. Is this agenda present in the text?
3. Offer some counterpoints. Imagine you are speaking to the author and saying, in good faith, "Yes, but what about . . .?"
4. Consider the context of the writing. Have other writers given similar or opposing views to those of the author and your rebuttals? Placing yourself in the company of others, especially when others are experts, is a great advantage.