You may be missing the 'skills' and 'motivational' aspect of 'knowledge'. We know 'that' but also 'how'.
And 'reasons for knowing' can operate at both an individual and a social level. These in turn raise the issue of selectivity of direction of knowledge, i.e. the 'vectoring of epistemology' which is partially encompassed by areas like 'the sociology of knowledge' or the notion of 'paradigms'.

NB Piaget's 'Genetic Epistemology' may be a useful model for discussing those points.

And 'reasons for knowing' can operate at both an individual and a social level. — fresco

Yes, I was only dealing with standard, objective methods for knowledge justification. It may be possible that knowledge is subjective. A belief may be knowledge for a particular individual, because he can justify it, but other people may not. I was actually only looking into shared beliefs, i.e. objective ones.

There may be no such thing as 'objective knowledge'. The phrase ' reason for knowing' implies that.
Nor can are 'perceived patterns' be considered 'objective'. It might be better to use 'overall consensus'
from a species pov, instead of 'objective' . The deconstruction of the subjective/objective dichotomy is prominent issue in epistemology..

There may be no such thing as 'objective knowledge'. — fresco

That really depends on the definition of the term "objective". If the degree of objectivity of a shared belief increases with the number of believers, we can actually measure objectivity.

Objective does not mean and should not mean "true". It also does not mean and should not mean "justified". A completely unjustified belief can perfectly be very objective.

I think that it is not a good idea to commingle the terms "true", "justified", and "objective". In my opinion, the term "objective" does not necessarily mean "better".

The deconstruction of the subjective/objective dichotomy is prominent issue in epistemology.. — fresco

That is indeed why its definition is an essential issue.

Still, I am mostly interested in the justification of shared beliefs.

So, what's the theory of knowledge of the theory of knowledge?

I don't think that makes any sense as a nested question.

So, what's the theory of knowledge of the theory of knowledge? — Terrapin Station

The question is: What is the knowledge-justification method in epistemology? Pattern matching, just like in science, but instead of matching them to real-world phenomena, it matches them to knowledge statements.

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, starting from the idea that knowledge is a justified belief (JtB). Hence, epistemology is a collection of standard justification methods, each of which generates an epistemic domain:

Mathematics is justified by proving it axiomatically (Bourbaki).
Science is justified by testing it experimentally (Popper).
History is justified by corroborating what has been witnessed. — alcontali

Well, justified true belief (JtB) is a bunch of gobbledegook cooked up by philosophers with too much time on their hands. I'm not the only one who believes that. Which doesn't change the fact justification is a central part of knowledge. It's just more complicated than you've presented it. First off, most of the things we know don't fall into the categories of math, science, or history, even if we exclude things like knowing how to ride a bike or speak German. There was knowledge before there was math, science, or history.

Here's how I've come to think about it after 30 years as an environmental engineer:

• First - Put together what you know about the subject at hand and how you know it.
• Second - set up what we call a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). Not really a theory. It's more comprehensive than that. It's the sum total of everything we know about something, how the different parts fit together, and an understanding of the uncertainty about that knowledge. An SCM can apply to a single property where we're trying to clean up contamination or the whole universe, depending on the scope of our interest.
• Third - Find the places where the SCM is inadequate - do your best to figure out where there are gaps in your knowledge or where there are significant uncertainties.
• Fourth - collect more information. Reformulate the SCM. Reevaluate its adequacy for the task at hand. Repeat as necessary.
• Fifth - use the SCM to plan how to achieve your goals.
• Sixth - based on the results of your attempts to meet your goals, repeat the third and forth steps if necessary.

Justification comes in the steps where we evaluate the SCM. We need to answer these questions:

• Does the information we have provide adequate support?
• Can we identify and document the source of that information?
• What are the uncertainties in our knowledge?
• What are the consequences of us being wrong?

I think that last question is the most important one in an evaluation of knowledge, one that doesn't get discussed often. The important question is not "what is truth." It's "what do I do now."

What is the knowledge-justification method in epistemology? — alcontali

That doesn't really make sense though. Epistemology looks at what knowledge is, what justification is, etc. Looking at knowledge and/or justification of looking at knowledge and justification doesn't add anything. It's not as if epistemology leaves those things unanalyzed.

The important question is not "what is truth." It's "what do I do now.

Spot on !

Epistemology looks at what knowledge is, what justification is, etc. Looking at knowledge and/or justificatio — Terrapin Station

Well, then we can ask ourselves the question: Is knowledge about knowledge, i.e. the metaknowledge, itself knowledge? If it is itself justified, then yes. Otherwise, no.

I think that epistemology is a justified belief, and therefore, itself knowledge.