Let's explore Pritchard's swamping argument

“Unless an epistemologist can clearly locate a non-instrumental, final value inherent to the structure of knowledge itself, the distinction collapses back into mere practical utility.”

“Critics argue that whenever philosophers try to prove knowledge is superior, they accidentally shift to instrumental benefits—such as arguing that knowledge is more stable or safer for guiding long-term actions. Stability is merely a better tool, which speaks to instrumental value rather than proving that knowledge has a superior final or intrinsic value.”

“The puzzle forces epistemologists to find a final or intrinsic value that makes the cognitive process of knowing superior in its own right.”

“knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.”

“But once a true belief is securely formed in the mind, the fact that it was generated by a truth-conducive, reliable process adds zero extra value to that mental state.”

“Just as we desire a reliable coffee machine only because we want good coffee, we theoretically value reliable mental faculties only because we want true beliefs”

“Pritchard's argument points out that once you possess a magnificent cup of coffee, the pedigree of its manufacturing process completely ceases to matter for the value of that specific drink. The fact that Cup A came from a reliable source does not make it taste better, nor does it make the liquid itself any more intrinsically valuable. The instrumental value that the reliable machine originally possessed is entirely swamped by the freestanding excellence of the coffee in the mug”

“if true belief is the ultimate cognitive treasure, why should we care whether that belief was produced by a reliable method?”