More Troubles for Comesana and Tal

Comesana and Tal have used a contentious account of evidence possession to claim that an “evidence of evidence is evidence” principle of R. Feldman (EEE3) is (true but) trivial. We demonstrate to the contrary that, on the Comesana–Tal account of evidence possession, EEE3 is either false (when interpreted as Comesana and Tal do) or true but non-trivial (when interpreted as suggested by the somewhat cryptic remarks of an anonymous referee).