Abstract

In this paper I argue that Evidentialism is unsatisfactory as a general account of epistemic justification. My argument takes the form of a dilemma. If the Evidentialist occupies its first horn, she's unable to explain the claim that ordinarily, S's experience that P gives S some degree of prima facie justification for believing P; if the Evidentialist occupies its second horn, she's unable to explain the claim that ordinarily, S's beliefs give S some degree of prima facie justification for believing other propositions. Either way, Evidentialism must be rejected on account of its inability to explain intuitive epistemic phenomena.