Epistemic Justification: Foundationalism vs Coherentism

The idea that all our beliefs, even basic ones, are justified by their relationships to other beliefs within a system of knowledge.

Beliefs that are considered foundational and do not require further justification. They are the starting points of our knowledge.

The argument that a belief system cannot rely on an infinite chain of justifications. There must be some foundation or basic beliefs.

The problem of providing justification for our basic beliefs. If we justify them by referring to other beliefs, we create an infinite chain.

The process of revising or changing our beliefs when they conflict with other beliefs in our system.

A specific type of coherentism where justification involves both positive support from the system and lack of negative impact. An example is a detective finding evidence that fits with their theory about a crime.

The idea that all empirical justification is based on inference from other beliefs. There are no foundational beliefs that are inherently justified on their own.

Coherentists believe that no belief is immune from revision. They can be challenged and modified within the system.

A belief that is accepted as true without needing further justification. It's the starting point for knowledge and acts as a foundation for other beliefs.

A philosophical view that all knowledge must ultimately rely on self-evident or unquestionable basic beliefs as its foundation.

The transfer of justification from basic beliefs to other, non-basic beliefs.

A belief that is not justified by other beliefs, but is considered true due to its inherent nature or direct experience.

The idea that justification for beliefs can be achieved through a process of logical deduction from basic beliefs.

The view that knowledge is not built on isolated beliefs but rather on a network of interconnected beliefs, all tested against experience.

The idea that beliefs can be justified through a process of reasoning from other beliefs, ultimately leading back to basic, self-warranting beliefs.

The problem of infinite regress, where each justification for a belief requires further justification, leading to an endless loop.

Foundationalism is a theory of knowledge that states that knowledge and justified belief are only possible through foundational beliefs, which are self-warranting and do not need justification from other beliefs.

Empirically grounded beliefs that are considered self-evident and do not require justification from other beliefs. For example, 'It is raining now' is a basic belief because it is self-evident when observing rain.

beliefs that are justified by other beliefs, particularly foundational beliefs. For example, the belief 'If I don't bring in the lawn chairs, the cushions will get wet' is justified based on the basic belief 'It is raining now' and the inference that cushions left in the rain will get wet.

The relationship between beliefs in foundationalism is linear and one-directional. This means that foundational beliefs justify non-foundational beliefs, but not vice versa.

A system of ideas and beliefs that are consistent and logically connected. A coherent system provides support and justification for beliefs within it.

Key thinkers who subscribe to foundationalism. Examples: Descartes, Hume, McGrew, Chisholm, Moser, and Bonjour (who was initially a coherentist).

Incorrigible beliefs are those we cannot be rationally corrected on, even if we're wrong. They serve as a foundation for justifying other beliefs.

Strong foundationalism claims that all knowledge is based on a set of self-evident, incorrigible beliefs.

Modest foundationalism accepts that basic beliefs are not infallible, but they are epistemically basic and form the foundation of our knowledge.

Terminal beliefs are the beliefs that stop the regress of justification. They need not be self-evident, but they do not need to be justified by other beliefs.

Initial credibility is the inherent plausibility of a belief, independent of any further justification or evidence. It is the foundational starting point for belief formation.

The regress of justification refers to the infinite chain of reasoning that arises when we ask for justification for any given belief. Each belief is then justified by another belief that we must then also justify, leading to an endless chain of reasoning.

Examples of words used to describe the concept of basic beliefs that cannot be doubted or proven false.

A belief that is based on personal experience and the senses, but these experiences could be false or misleading, like a dream.

The idea that our senses give us direct access to the world, providing us with basic empirical beliefs that are considered certain.

The philosopher who is most often associated with Classical Foundationalism (CF), known for his emphasis on the importance of self-evident, incorrigible truths.

The argument is that CF is vulnerable to criticism because the strength of its claims about absolute certainties makes it open to traditional philosophical attacks.

The idea that some basic, foundational beliefs are infallible or incorrigible (cannot be wrong). This suggests that certain experiences are directly known and cannot be doubted.

A problem faced by foundationalists who argue for incorrigible beliefs. If the content of these beliefs is extremely simple ('Something looks white to me'), there's less room for error, but they might not be useful for justifying other beliefs. If the content is more complex, it becomes easier to be wrong. This creates a dilemma.

The process of using evidence from one belief to support the justification of another belief. The foundationalist view suggests that basic beliefs are directly known and can justify other beliefs.

Rene Descartes' famous statement claiming certainty about his own existence based on his immediate conscious experience. This statement is often seen as a foundational belief, as it's based on direct experience and seems impossible to doubt.

A problem faced by foundationalists who attempt to explain how we know about the external world. If basic beliefs are purely inner experiences, how do they provide knowledge of things outside of our minds?