If I had to coin a name for the epistemology we arrived at in chapter 3, I might call it “evidence-constrained coherentism,” but I don’t really want to name it. At least, I’d just as soon have readers forget the name as soon as they finish this chapter. A name might suggest that we are talking about a special kind of thought and knowledge, when really we are talking about just plain old thought and knowledge in general. We are dealing with matters so general that naming them would be the business of specialists, and I am not a specialist. In a wise joke, one fish comments on how nice the water is today, to which another fish replies, “What’s water?” In the same way, evidence-constrained coherentism is so normal that it doesn’t need a name.