 Let us focus on  IMP  for now. Harman’s objections establish that  IMP—in  its current form, at least—is untenable. The question is whether  IMP  can be improved upon in a way that is invulnerable to Harman’s objections. In other words, the question is whether a tenable version of what MacFarlane (MF2004) calls a bridge principle is to be had. A bridge principle, in this context, is a general principle that articulates a substantive relation between “facts” about logical consequence (or perhaps an agent’s attitudes towards such facts) on the one hand, and norms governing the agent’s doxastic attitudes vis-à-vis the propositions standing in these logical relations on the other.  IMP  is a bridge principle, albeit not a promising one.