asserting that the case of clairvoyance is one of knowledge even though we do not really believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process demonstrating that the case of clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge and does not fit the definition of knowledge explaining that the definition of knowledge is a matter of personal choice asserting that the objection is based on a belief about the reliability of clairvoyance rather than on the nature of knowledge or its definition
Essayist: Knowledge has been defined as a true belief formed by a reliable process. This definition has been criticized on the grounds that if someone had a reliable power of clairvoyance, we would not accept that person' s claim to know certain things on the basis of this power. I agree that we would reject such claims, but we would do so because we really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process. Were we to believe in clairvoyance, we would accept knowledge claims made on the basis of it.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the essayist's method of defending the definition against the objection?