Abstract: Your evidence E justifies you in believing some hypothesis H. But then what justifies you in conditionally believing H given E? Some epistemologists answer this question by appeal to some form of rationalism, whereas others resort to subjectivism. In this paper, I argue for an empiricist alternative to both rationalism and subjectivism. I then show how this empiricist view can refute skepticism without appeal to any externalist ingredients. Finally, if I have time, I will argue that this form of empiricism solves a number of recently discussed epistemological puzzles concerning easy knowledge and higher-order evidence.