In ‘Evil is Still Evidence: Comments on Almeida’ Robert Bass presents three objections to the central argument (ENE) in my ‘Evil is Not Evidence’. The first objection is that ENE is invalid. According to the second objection, it is a consequence of ENE that there can be no evidence for or against a posteriori necessities. The third objection is that, contrary to ENE, the likelihood of certain necessary identities varies with the evidence we have for them. In this reply I explain why ENE has exactly none of the implications described by Bass. I argue in the concluding section that there is a modal solution to the epistemological problems presented by ENE.

中文翻译：

---

邪恶与证据：对巴斯的答复

在《邪恶仍然是证据：对阿尔梅达的评论》中，罗伯特·巴斯对我的《邪恶不是证据》中的中心论点（ENE）提出了三个反对意见。第一个反对意见是 ENE 无效。根据第二个反对意见，ENE 的结果是没有证据支持或反对后验必然性。第三个反对意见是，与 ENE 相反，某些必要身份的可能性随我们所掌握的证据而变化。在这篇回复中，我解释了为什么 ENE 完全没有巴斯所描述的含义。我在结论部分认为，ENE 提出的认识论问题有一个模式解决方案。