foundationalism

Coherentism

Justification not yet generated — showing supporting facts

• Proponents of virtue epistemology claim that it offers advantages such as bypassing disputes between foundationalists and coherentists regarding cognitive structure, avoiding skeptical worries, avoiding the impasse between internalism and externalism, and broadening the range of epistemological inquiry to include values like understanding and wisdom.
• Coherentism is typically defended by attacking foundationalism as a viable alternative, specifically by arguing that no beliefs or too few beliefs enjoy the epistemic privilege essential to foundationalism.
• Foundherentism is an epistemological theory that attempts to reconcile foundationalism and coherentism by combining a set of beliefs that have an externally established foundation with internal relationships between those beliefs.
• Explanationists argue that their theory avoids the problems associated with standard foundationalism and pure coherentism while incorporating the attractive features of both.
• Ernest Sosa attempts to resolve the conflict between foundationalism and coherentism by proposing an externalist version of foundationalism.
• Ernest Sosa argued that appealing to intellectual virtue could resolve the conflict between foundationalists and coherentists regarding the structure of epistemic justification.
• Notable approaches to explaining the epistemic standard include evidentialism, strong/modest foundationalism, coherentism, explanationism, infinitism, virtue responsibilism, virtue reliabilism, process reliabilism, and proper functionalism.
• Robert Audi published 'Foundationalism, Coherentism, and Epistemological Dogmatism' in the journal Philosophical Perspectives in 1988.
• In his 1980 paper "The Raft and the Pyramid," Ernest Sosa argued that an appeal to intellectual virtue could resolve the conflict between foundationalists and coherentists regarding the structure of epistemic justification.
• Edmund Gettier developed counterexamples to the traditional account of knowledge as justified true belief in 1963, which prompted the development of competing theories like coherentism and foundationalism.
• Ernest Sosa applied his 'virtue perspectivism' to resolve disputes in contemporary epistemology, including debates between foundationalists and coherentists, and between internalists and externalists.
• Virtue epistemology is not mutually exclusive with foundationalism or coherentism, but rather offers a different perspective on debates regarding the nature and security of knowledge.
• Susan Haack argues that foundationalism is prone to arbitrariness, while coherentism is prone to circularity.
• Foundherentism is an intermediary position that combines elements of foundationalism and coherentism by accepting the distinction between basic and non-basic beliefs while asserting that the justification of non-basic beliefs depends on coherence with other beliefs.
• Coherentism and foundationalism are rival theories in modern epistemology, and both aim to address the problem of infinite regress.
• Foundationalism and coherentism in epistemology focus on the structure of justification and belief.
• Infinitism is a theory of justification that posits that the structure of justification is neither foundationalist nor coherentist, but rather consists of an infinite number of appropriately structured, available reasons upon which a justified belief rests.
• Ernest Sosa's initial appeal to intellectual virtue in his essay “The Raft and the Pyramid” was intended to resolve the dispute between foundationalism and coherentism regarding the structure of epistemic justification.
• Coherentists characterize the logical structure of reasons for belief in terms of doxastic coherence relations, whereas foundationalists characterize it in terms of relations between foundational beliefs and the beliefs they support.
• Coherentists and foundationalists generally agree that justification for believing a claim requires having a good reason for thinking that the claim is true, but they disagree on the logical structure of that reason.
• Susan Haack's 'A Foundherentist Theory of Empirical Justification' attempts to combine coherentism and foundationalism into an internalist account of justification that she argues is superior to either theory alone.
• Virtue epistemology differs from foundationalism and coherentism by beginning with the notion of personal intellectual virtue to build a normative account of beliefs, whereas the other two focus on the properties of beliefs themselves.
• The 'compromise position' in epistemology attempts to bridge foundationalism and coherentism by arguing that perceptual experiences are a source of justification because a subject has justification for taking those experiences to be reliable, without requiring the subject to hold a belief that attributes reliability to those experiences.
• The conflict between foundationalism and coherentism is fundamentally a conflict between dependence coherentism and independence foundationalism.
• Philosophers who support the use of intuition and a priori reasoning for moral knowledge debate whether the resulting justification is coherentist or foundationalist.
• Infinitism is an epistemological theory that accepts the idea that all justifications require further justifications, effectively rejecting the infinite regress constraints of both coherentism and foundationalism.
• Ernest Sosa suggested in a paper that virtue might resolve the intractable disputes between coherentists and foundationalists.

basic beliefs

Justification not yet generated — showing supporting facts

• Foundationalism defines a basic belief as a belief that is justified directly, without depending on the support of other beliefs.
• Foundationalists argue that basic beliefs are justified by experiences rather than by other beliefs.
• Some philosophers question how foundherentism differs from moderate forms of foundationalism that loosen the criteria for what constitutes a basic belief.
• Foundationalism posits that justified beliefs are structured like a building, consisting of a foundation of basic beliefs and a superstructure of nonbasic beliefs that rely on the foundation for justification.
• The regress argument for foundationalism posits that for any justified belief (B1), if it is not basic, it must be justified by another belief (B2), which in turn requires justification, leading to an infinite chain or a loop unless the chain terminates in a basic belief.
• Foundationalism requires that basic beliefs must either be self-justified or derive their justification from a non-doxastic source, such as sensory inputs.
• Foundationalism posits that basic beliefs serve as the foundation for all other knowledge, while non-basic beliefs act as a superstructure resting on that foundation.
• If foundationalists require a logical guarantee of contact with reality, they must assume that basic beliefs are infallible.
• In foundationalism, the belief that it rained last night is considered a non-basic belief if it is inferred from the observation that the street is wet.
• Foundationalism characterizes knowledge and justification as a structure resembling a building, where a superstructure rests upon a foundation of basic beliefs.
• Foundherentism is an intermediary position that combines elements of foundationalism and coherentism by accepting the distinction between basic and non-basic beliefs while asserting that the justification of non-basic beliefs depends on coherence with other beliefs.
• Foundationalism is an epistemological theory that focuses on the structure of justification rather than its source, asserting that self-evident axioms or basic beliefs are necessary to support other justifications and beliefs.
• Basic beliefs are defined in foundationalism as beliefs that are able to confer justification on other, non-basic beliefs without having their own justification conferred upon them by other beliefs.
• Foundationalists typically define the justificatory relation between basic and nonbasic beliefs as non-deductive, meaning a basic belief B justifies a nonbasic belief B* if B makes B* likely to be true, rather than requiring B to entail B*.
• Some philosophers argue that foundherentism is indistinguishable from moderate forms of foundationalism that loosen the criteria for what constitutes a basic belief.
• Foundationalists are epistemologists who believe that justification has a structure consisting of justified foundational (or basic) beliefs that serve as the epistemic foundation for justified non-basic beliefs.
• Foundationalism is an epistemological theory structured as a hierarchy, where basic beliefs that are considered untouchable or foundational sit at the bottom.

justification

Foundationalism is an epistemological theory that specifically defines the structure and requirements of justification, as described in [1], [2], and [3]. The relationship is further evidenced by how foundationalism addresses the logical problem of justification regress [4] and defines the criteria for how beliefs confer justification upon one another [5], [6]. — 17 supporting facts

epistemology

Foundationalism is a core theory within the field of epistemology that addresses the structure of justification and belief, as established in [1] and [2]. It is frequently discussed in relation to other epistemological theories like coherentism and infinitism [3], [4], and its validity is a central subject of debate within the discipline [5]. — 9 supporting facts

knowledge

Foundationalism is a theory that defines the structure of knowledge, often comparing it to a pyramid or building {fact:2, fact:4}. It is central to epistemological debates regarding the nature of knowledge [1], with authors like Roderick Chisholm providing systematic analyses of knowledge through a foundationalist lens [2], and other theories emerging in response to challenges regarding the traditional definition of knowledge [3]. — 6 supporting facts

belief

Foundationalism is an epistemological theory defined by the structure of justification, which relies on basic beliefs to support other beliefs as described in [1] and [2]. Furthermore, foundationalism is explicitly linked to the concept of belief through its requirement for self-evident axioms [2] and its integration into theories like foundherentism [3]. — 4 supporting facts

Virtue epistemology

Virtue epistemology is related to foundationalism as it provides an alternative perspective on the nature of knowledge [1] and seeks to bypass traditional debates between foundationalists and coherentists [2]. Furthermore, the two concepts are distinguished by their differing starting points, with virtue epistemology focusing on intellectual virtue while foundationalism focuses on the properties of beliefs [3]. — 3 supporting facts