Epistemology

Epistemology tries to answer questions like:

1. What is knowledge?
2. What is truth?
3. How should we form beliefs?
4. How do I know what I know?

When thinking about which epistemology is correct, we come across an interesting paradox. How do we know that a certain epistemology is correct? To answer that question, we'd have to have an epistemology already established.... and whether you realize it or not, you already do. If you think you know anything at all, you have an epistemology. You can't have knowledge without a method of acquiring it. It just doesn't make sense. Maybe you haven't thought about it explicitly before. Maybe you don't always apply it consistently to everything you call "knowledge." But you do have an epistemology.
As we weigh various epistemologies against one another, here are the criteria I think we should be looking for:

1. Internal Consistency. Does the method make sense? Are we guaranteed not to arrive at contradictory knowledge with this method?
2. Usefulness. Knowledge is a tool and it should be demonstrably useful. Does the method help us with real-life day-to-day scenarios? Does it produce workable, useful results?
3. Reality-Based. Knowledge is about the truth of reality. Does this method link us to reality in a coherent and logical way?
4. Complete. Does the method define the terms knowledge, truth & belief? Does it lay out specific methods to follow for discovering knowledge?

These are just my idea of what a good epistemology is. Do you think these are valid criteria? Would you perhaps add you own? Would you remove one of my mine? Let me know what you think and why in the comments section.

After we get this nailed down, we will take a look at some specific epistemologies and see how they measure up.