It is a dogma of contemporary epistemology that doxastic justification (= having a justified belief) requires that one hold that belief on the basis of an epistemically appropriate reason. This demand has been used to support various other epistemological doctrines. I argue that there is next to no reason to think there is a basing demand on doxastic justification. More to the point, I argue that so long as one actually has good reasons for belief, it is possible to have a justified belief that is based on the worst possible reasons. For example, basing a belief on tarot card readings, irrational bias, coin flips, etc. is no barrier to doxastic justification. I also argue that even should the basing demand be correct, it would fail to be of dialectical value. This paper will appear here: