I don't know whether an epistemology can be true or false.
A literature professor might ask: What happens when you see Hamlet in terms of Dennett"s epistemology as opposed to the epistemology of Aristotele?
If you want to ask that question it doesn't matter whether the epistemologies are true. It makes sense that the professor focuses on understanding the epistemology of Daniel Dennett instead of trying to understand which epistemology is true.
An literature professor doesn't try to understand the epistemology of God, the one true epistemology. He tries to understand the epistemology of authors. Daniel Dennett happens to be an important author and his epistemology seems worthy of analysis.
I don't know whether an epistemology can be true or false.
That's because "true" or "false" are aspects of maps, and epistemologies aren't maps - they're mapmaking tools.
You don't judge tools based on their truth or falsehood; you judge them based on their usefulness towards a certain purpose.
In humans' case, I think that an epistemology's job is to act as a bridge between our naive map-making and the world - that is, an epistemology's usefulness is measured by how well humans can use it to generate maps of their territory, and how we...
Rationality quotes time!
The usual rules: