A hunter archer can also be out to shock by taking crazy shots. What makes his shots "crazy" is set by excessive risk, judged by hunting-archery standards, which would tend to draw agreement from knowledgeable observers.

There isn't a formal definition of success.

When I accept someone's testimony, I am thus only a small part of the full seat of epistemic competence, which might include many others in a long chain. My own contribution might then be slight, just through the perceptual and linguistic competence involved in knowing what someone is saying or writing, etc.

It is bad to want something that not even God could attain, especially when the impossibility becomes obvious.

Flourishing is properly the main human end, and flourishing is activity of soul that succeeds in accord with virtue.

If we have a better understanding of knowledge than we do of such justification or competence, then we can explain the latter through the former.

There is no need for the scientist to go into whether an observation was made, nor into the who, what, when, or where. The data on which scientific theorizing is based are rather the propositional contents of the instrument readings recorded, or the facts detected thereby.