Abstract Eva Schmidt argues that facts about incoherent beliefs can be non-evidential epistemic reasons to suspend judgment. In this commentary, I argue incoherence-based are epistemically superfluous: if the subjects in Schmidt’s cases ought judgment, then they should do so merely on basis of their evidential reasons. This suggests a more general strategy reduce apparent normativity coherence ...

Abstract This paper presents a counterexample to the principle that all epistemic reasons for doxastic attitudes towards p are provided by evidence concerning . I begin motivating and clarifying associated picture of reasons, including notion proposition, which comprises both first- second-order evidence. then introduce from incoherent presenting three example cases. In each case, fact subject’...