PhilArchive
open access
On Having Evidence: A Reply to Neta
According to one line of thought only propositions can be part of one’s evidence, since only propositions can serve the central functions of our ordinary concept of evidence. Ram Neta has challenged this argument. In this paper I respond to Neta’s challenge.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Proof-Theoretic Semantics, a Problem with Negation and Prospects for Modality#746188
- More Troubles for Comesana and Tal#731050
- Evidential-Based Higher-Order Set Argumentation Framework#973361
- Statistical Evidence, Normalcy, and the Gatecrasher Paradox#702001
- Probability, Evidential Support, and the Logic of Conditionals#93550
Record · ID 749108
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive