There are different types of epistemology. The first is perfect epistemology which holds as knowledge only that which can be proven or are definitional truths. This means that most things can not be known. The next is imperfect procedural epistemology this system is less concerned with the issue of error and more the issue of ignorance. This form of epistemology works to find what can be claimed as knowledge with the belief that there is a chance of error and works to reform systems that are known to produce error. Thus when a knowledge claim is made it is made with the realization that no matter how solid it seems it could still be wrong and when it is then the belief will be remade to be less wrong. Our belief about knowledge is constantly being revised as we improve our systems of knowing and gain knew information which changes previously agreed upon beliefs. Pure procedural epistemology is the system that has results which are generated from their statements. The example used in the reading is logic. A conclusion in logic is done with pure procedural epistemology because its conclusions are produced through the rules of logic thus when the rules of logic are followed then the conclusion must be correct.

The first of these three does not sound appealing to me at all but the other two I can see a use in. I guess the imperfect epistemology is what I am more inclined to lean towards because of the class moral truth. It did a great job of convincing me that we hold beliefs when they cohere and we have justification for them but must also accept the fact that any one of our beliefs or all of them could be wrong. This seemed best because then I am not stuck with any beliefs that I hold as a priori facts(they make me uneasy). In this chapter there was something about coherence not being enough, that we must be able to balance everything. I am not sure I completely understand this idea and would love to talk about it more in class. I feel like the argument is just that we need to know how to balance our justification for beliefs in order to have the best reason for believing it and thus being closer to correct. But this is probably a much simpler understanding than he was going for.