text: The*epistemic approach*to informal logic, on the other hand, focuses on the epistemic role of 
  arguments.[148] It is based on the idea that arguments aim to increase our knowledge. They achieve this 
  by linking justified beliefs to beliefs that are not yet justified.[149] Correct arguments succeed at 
  expanding knowledge while fallacies are epistemic failures: they do not justify the belief in their 
  conclusion.[150] For example, the fallacy of begging the question is a*fallacy*because it fails to provide 
  independent justification for its conclusion, even though it is deductively valid.[151] In this sense, logical 
  normativity consists in epistemic success or rationality.[149] The Bayesian approach is one example of an 
  epistemic approach.[152] Central to Bayesianism is not just whether the agent believes something but the 
  degree to which they believe it, the so-called*credence*. Degrees of belief are seen as subjective 
  probabilities in the believed proposition, i.e. how certain the agent is that the proposition is true.[153] On 
  this view, reasoning can be interpreted as a process of changing one's credences, often in reaction to new 