Whether such criticisms are effective against EC is controversial. (See DeRose 1995, 6–7 and Rieber 1998, 197, e.g., on the extension of EC to one’s thoughts; DeRose 2006, Section 4; 2009, 161–166; and Cohen 2005, 201–206 reply to Hawthorne’s arguments concerning belief reports.) However, whatever we make of these issues, not to mention the ones earlier raised, they could give us reason to reject EC only if there were some viable alternative explanation of the relevant data—in particular, of the apparently inconsistent “knowledge” claims described in Section 3. Whereas, if we could explain those data without introducing a novel view of the semantics of ‘know’, that would considerably weaken the case for EC.