I'm not a big fan of JTB epistemology, either, but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them. In ord

I'm not a big fan of JTB epistemology, either, but you can't help regressing to some sort of common ground in order to make conjectures and refute them. In order for someone to make a conjecture that A does B, and for someone else to point out that A actually doesn't do B, both parties need to agree on the meanings of A and B, as well as what it means for A to do B, usually by appealing to C, an independent common ground. You climb down as many levels of abstractions as needed until you reach C, because otherwise you're just talking past each other. Even in a coherentist system, the network of existing beliefs forms the common ground against which questionable beliefs are tested, and some beliefs are held firmer than others. Those beliefs are treated as already justified for the purpose of the current investigation. Few people who talk about consciousness would ever consider denying that they are conscious.