A recent article in this journal by Richard Otte, as well as brief passages in a couple of books by Jonathan Kvanvig and William Lane Craig, have set forth a distinctive strategy for defending middle knowledge from its critics.1 The approach in question not only differs significantly from other defenses of middle knowledge that have been put forward, but also captures well one of the main reasons why middle knowledge has come to possess whatever plausibility it now enjoys in philosophical circles. I happen to think that this defense is not ultimately successful; but since it does represent a central strand in the case for middle knowledge, its failure is instructive in a way that makes it amply worth re-examining. In undertaking such a re-examination, I will focus my comments on the more extensive discussion to be found in Otte's article.