I greatly appreciate the charitable read and I agree. So long as JTB isn't meant to actually describe the real world and is only maintained for the purpose of an exercise I suppose I no longer object. Thank you for the reference to Gettier; I'm aware my arguments or causal assertions must appear quite naive.

Do you think you could produce an example of these two different types of knowledge? The general and the technical?

I suppose I'm agreeing with Gettier in a sense, but avoiding his objection. He's saying hey your system doesn't work because it can produce mistaken knowledge. I'm saying some knowledge is mistaken.

Is some one arguing that verifying an idea makes the idea true? Wouldn't that be called truthing? I submit that truthing is not a word.

I really enjoy this argument, but often 'not free will' rests their case on an unreasonable definition. Specifically, they maintain any 'will' that isn't completely in the absence of influence or constraint is not truly free and so there is no free will. Some one will even go so far as to state that a 'free will' must even be completely random.

I think there is a reasonable argument to made for free will based simply on empirical evidence. I believe myself to have free will in the context of reality. Free in so much as what I believe I 'will' is truly a product of my own mind. I am a creature of habit, emotion, and thought, but these things do not take my 'free will' they simply provide the context from which my 'will' is exercised.