I missed the bit where belief in "anybody" was justified by the facts regarding "Jones" getting the job. Given that all sorts of smart people have looked at thi

I missed the bit where belief in "anybody" was justified by the facts regarding "Jones" getting the job. Given that all sorts of smart people have looked at this before, I'll plead to being dumb and hopefully someone will help me understand. [For me] All that seems to reinforce the need for the 'correspondence' variety of truth. Smith is free to believe all sorts of non-sense, and this in fact happens in real life all the time. People around us have all sorts of funny theories about the world and reality. We all have them. That sort of 'knowledge' -- actionable and informative theories about the world regardless of completeness or factuality -- serves its purpose in every day life. The degree to which it is false and contextually relevant determines the probability of a collision between actual reality and one's theories about reality modulo 'chance' events. This is basically how human society operates and has operated for ever. We have (hopefully) learning agents navigating a partially error tolerant environment. "Live and learn". So this is a practical sort of knowledge that can be well served by a pragmatic take on truth. The only question really is more fundamental and this asks if philosophy is itself a sort of mental appendix, a part that really serves no purpose :_, for every day conduct of life. To wit, this 'unassailable' sort of knowledge, who needs it? And if we can't answer that, why ask the question?