Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Argues that evidence possession requires an epistemic condition, revealing implications for internalism.
An important question for evidentialism is: what does it take to have evidence? Feldman (2004) and McGrath (2018) argue that evidence possession requires more than psychological access—it must also satisfy an epistemic condition, such as being justified. In this paper, I argue that the epistemic condition either results in a problematic regress or denies internalism unless one distinguishes between two senses of evidence possession. Developing this distinction helps to clarify the structure and nature of our evidence. In particular, it shows that one’s evidence, at a fundamental level, is self-supporting and consists of one’s mental states rather than their propositional contents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kevin Gausselin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: