Experience and Defeasible Justification

I consider three theories about the role of experience in empirical justification: the phenomenal conception of evidence, according to which experiences themselves are evidence; factualism, according to which empirical evidence is constituted by facts (or true propositions) and the role of experience is to provide those facts as evidence; and my own preferred view (sometimes called "propositionalism"), which shares with factualism the conception of the role of experience as purveyor of evidence but according to which false propositions can also be evidence. I briefly argue in favor of propositionalism. However, my main goal is to defend the theory from a recent objection: that it cannot account for the defeasible character of empirical justification.