Each of these claims expresses a candidate epistemic norm, a proposal about how
an agent's doxastic attitudes must be in so far as she is to count as epistemically rational.
Perhaps neither is obviously correct; TB in particular is clearly in need of greater specificity
(how, for instance, is one to trade off between the dual demands of believing truths and
avoiding believing falsehoods?). But each, I think, has at least a certain ring of plausibility
to it, a sense that if we haven't yet stated things in quite the proper way, we're at least on
the right path.