The papers are now up for the 2010 Rocky Mountain Philosophy Conference.
Disclaimer: Reading my paper listed on the site provides a good overview of the total evidence requirement, but I’ve tightened and refined my argument against the requirement. I’m now arguing for an objective requirement on epistemic rationality, which does not require factoring subjective and epistemic situation evidence into determining what it is reasonable to believe about a proposition. Though such evidence is still part of the body of total evidence, only a proper subset of evidence (i.e., potential and veridical evidence) should carry the day in determining what it is reasonable to believe about a proposition and to what degree.
Advertisement
