The phrase "evidential justification" is correct and usable in written English
It is typically used in a formal context when providing evidence or reasons to support an argument or decision. For example: "The board of directors provided evidential justification for increasing the company's budget by 20%."
By imposing an evidential requirement on justification, we seem to solve the Norman problem.
Traditionally, epistemology has been construed as a normative project whose aim is to clarify and defend conceptions of knowledge, foundations, evidential warrant and justification.
"Evidential" accounts of testimonial justification have difficulties explaining this phenomenon.
If we take our epistemology to be informationalised, then the constitution of evidential bases as information states places justification logics within the information as code approach in a straightforward manner.
The second component of the evidentialist definition of justification is the idea of evidential support.
It readily conjoins with a concept of justification of either of these evidential sorts, and so accessibility internalism does not entail that a deontological concept of justification is correct.
For mentalism is compatible with a concept of justification defined in terms of degree of evidential support, or adequacy of evidential support, and there is nothing particularly deontic about either of these ideas.
Justification may have foundations but only because we end a regress of justification with propositions that are known the evidential foundation on which all justified belief rests is knowledge (186).
Perhaps the disanalogy proponents believe that justification of physical object claims should be our evidential standard, because only where crosschecks of the physical object kind are available do we get sufficient justification.
