 Goldman (forthcoming) argues that these considerations carry two lessons. First, they show that the generality problem is very general, since some version of it arises in non-epistemic contexts. Second, Goldman takes these considerations to cast doubt on the common assumption—voiced explicitly by Conee and Feldman (1998: 2–3)—that an adequate solution to the generality problem will need to specify a unique process type responsible for any and every token belief. According to Goldman, an evaluator can correctly (and justifiably) describe a process as reliable, without being able to specify in any detail the sort of process type at issue.