On Having Evidence: A Reply to Neta

Logos and Episteme 6 (3): 367-370 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Similar books and articles

What evidence do you have?Ram Neta - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):89-119.
Perceptual evidence and the capacity view.Ram Neta - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (4):907-914.
On practices and the law.Mark Greenberg - 2006 - Legal Theory 12 (2):113-136.
No Evidence is False.Clayton Littlejohn - 2013 - Acta Analytica 28 (2):145-159.
Is evidence non-inferential?Alexander Bird - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (215):252–265.
Contextualism and the problem of the external world.Ram Neta - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1):1–31.
Reply to Gallimore.Ram Neta - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 134 (1):71 - 72.
Evidence does not equal knowledge.Aaron Rizzieri - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 153 (2):235-242.
Reply to Professor Brinton.Clement Dore - 1985 - Religious Studies 21 (1):91 - 92.
Evidence and Knowledge.Clayton Littlejohn - 2011 - Erkenntnis 74 (2):241-262.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-11-30

Downloads
474 (#37,958)

6 months
93 (#42,284)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Artūrs Logins
Université Laval

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

What evidence do you have?Ram Neta - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):89-119.

Add more references