He answers the same question like this: “One should not expect a precise answer to this question. Our conception of justification is vague in this regard” (Goldman, 1979). Goldman began to outline a theory that remained faithful to the relationship between justification and knowledge but at the same time was not hampered by the limitations of the classical view. Goldman admits, in the note, that the theory was intended as an ordinary, or “naive,” explanation of the conception of justification (Goldman 1979). And although the theory lacks satisfactory explanations for the problem of generality, the problem of extension and is open to the lottery paradox; as an ordinary account it accomplished what was intended. Goldman also suggests that if one wanted a theory that “does more than capture the ordinary conception of justification” (Goldman, 1979), the possibility is inherent in his theory.