Evidence and facts about incoherence: Reply to Schmidt

In her recent “Facts about incoherence as non-evidential epistemic reasons,” Eva Schmidt defends the claim that not all reasons are provided by evidence. presents three cases describing agents with incoherent beliefs and argues that, in each case, fact an agent’s provides a reason to suspend judgment on issue about. While I find suggestion facts can play positive roles our cognitive lives intriguing, have reservations Schmidt’s view: first concerns conceptual framework—I think it is less neutral than appears be—the second view’s behavior certain kinds of scenarios involving higher-order evidence, third has do some implausible consequences view. also hint at alternative account role incoherence.