Another major subject of debate is the sources of justification, which might include perceptual experience (the evidence of the senses), reason, and authoritative testimony, among others.
[citation needed] Some contemporary epistemologists, such as Jonathan Kvanvig assert that justification isn't necessary in getting to the truth and avoiding errors.
This conception implies, for instance, that a person who has made his best effort but is incapable of concluding the correct belief from his evidence is still justified.
There are several different views as to what entails justification, mostly focusing on the question "How sure do we need to be that our beliefs correspond to the actual world?"
He concludes that the modern proponents have made no significant progress in responding to the ancient modes of Pyrrhonian skepticism.
Different epistemologists have been emphasizing, concentrating on, "pushing" different epistemic desiderata, different features of belief that are positively valuable from the standpoint of the aims of cognition.