, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 399–404 | Cite as

A New Argument for Evidentialism?

  • Masahiro YamadaEmail author


In his “A new argument for evidentialism” (Shah, Philos Q 56(225): 481–498, 2006), Nishi Shah argues that the best explanation of a feature of deliberation whether to believe that p which he calls transparency entails that only evidence can be reason to believe that p. I show that his argument fails because a crucial lemma that his argument appeals to cannot be supported without assuming evidentialism to be true in the first place.


Epistemology Evidentialism Doxastic deliberation Constitutivism Norm of belief 


  1. Booth, A. (2008). A new argument for pragmatism? Philosophia, 36(2), 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Shah, N. (2003). How truth governs belief. The Philosophical Review, 112(4), 447–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Shah, N. (2006). A new argument for evidentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56(225), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Shah, N., & Velleman, J. D. (2005). Doxastic deliberation. Philosophical Review, 114(4), 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Steglich-Petersen, A. (2006). No norm needed: On the aim of belief. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56(225), 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Steglich-Petersen, A. (2008). Does doxastic transparency support evidentialism? Dialectica, 62(4), 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Williams, B. (1980). Internal and external reasons. In Moral luck (pp. 101–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations