 Consider how this plays out in the case of  (NC).  Kolodny proposes an evidentialist response. Any violation of  (NC)  is indeed a violation of a norm, but the relevant norm being violated is a (narrow scope) evidential norm: the norm, roughly, that one has reason to believe a proposition only in so far as “the evidence indicates, or makes likely, that” the proposition is true. A norm, in other words, much like  (EN)  (in the supplement on Bridge Principles). The thought is that any  instance of my violating  (NC)  is eo ipso an instance in which my beliefs are out of whack with the evidence. For when I hold contradictory beliefs, at least one of the beliefs must be unsupported by the evidence. As Kolodny puts it,