Introduction:

 

Epistemic justification is the way we justify our claims to know. Epistemic justification refers to a person having reasons or evidence for his beliefs. Justification determines whether a belief is rational. If a belief cannot be justified then that belief is not rational. This begs the question, how do we justify a belief? There are various epistemological methods for justification that will be examined. 

 

Foundationalism:

Foundationalism is the view that beliefs can be inference by other beliefs that need no support. According to Foundationalism, epistemic justification is pyramidal. The beliefs of the lowest tier are justifiably believed without appeal to any other reason. Thus, they constitute the foundation for knowledge. An example of a foundational belief may be ¨I exist¨ or ¨Bachelors are unmarried.¨ Inferred beliefs depend on other beliefs or information for support.

 

Although Foundationalism is enticing, especially to philosophers like Rene Descartes who used such methodology, a few objections have emerged to the method. Some philosophers, such as David Hume, argue that there are no incorrigible statements that can serve as epistemologically basic propositions for perceptual knowledge. Hume argued that any knowledge of the external world was fallible. Hume’s argument, however, assumes that it is necessary for all epistemologically basic propositions to be incorrigible. Philosophers characteristically hold that some basic beliefs are incorrigible (such as mathematics and logic) and some are not (the external world). Thus, philosophers like John Pollock divide epistemologically basic propositions into those that are incorrigible and those that are not incorrigible. Yet, others have objected that even if there are basic beliefs, that they are insufficient for a comprehensive epistemology. In other words, there are not enough basic beliefs to serve as a foundation for all kinds of knowledge. This criticism, however, was critiqued in John Pollock’s book Knowledge and Justification. In said book, it is his contention that sufficient foundations can be found. 

 

Coherentism:

 

The major alternative to Foundationalism is Coherentism (which is also sometimes called contextualism). Unlike Foundationalism, Coherentism doesn’t have a pyramid like structure with basic beliefs as a foundation. Justification, in Coherentism, meanders in and out through our network of beliefs. Britannica defines Coherentism as, “Theory of truth according to which a belief is true just in case, or to the extent that, it coheres with a system of other beliefs.” There is a mutual relationship between various beliefs, so that one supports a second while the second may support a third and that third the first. Thus, most philosophers state that Coherentism can be viewed like a spider's-web. 

 

A major problem with Coherentism, however, is that it results in infinite regress. If there are no foundations or basic propositions which are immediately justified, then there is an infinite regress of justification-and ultimately the failure of any belief to be justified. 

Conclusion:

 

Both Foundationalists and Coherentists seek to find a perfect method for justifying beliefs. At some point, though, foundationalism and coherentism approach one another. If a foundationalist will accept basic beliefs that are not incorrigible and reasons that are not logically conclusive, and if a coherentist will accept the views that beliefs at the outer edges of the web are farther from experience, then the two views have important similarities. 

Sources:

 

 Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "coherentism". Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 Aug. 2022, https://www.britannica.com/topic/coherentism. Accessed 22 February 2023.