Much of this discussion concerns the justification of knowledge claims, that is the grounds on which one can claim to know a particular fact.

If someone makes a knowledge claim in respect of a proposition, it is meaningful to enquire about the criteria of such knowledge.

This is the view that, because criticism works by being directed on existing knowledge claims, it follows that nothing in general can be said about criticism.

We expect them to have some degree of self-awareness, and self-regard, in their knowledge claims.

No knowledge claim is privileged.

If we accept the principle of fallibilism we also have to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims.

It is therefore self-refuting; only justified through an infinite regress of not knowing knowledge claims and not knowing that you can know them ad infinitum.

Impartiality: it examines successful as well as unsuccessful knowledge claims.

The theory therefore analyses the certainty required for a knowledge claim as the belief that the two subjunctive conditionals are satisfied.

It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.