Editing Epistemology (section)

=== Foundationalism and coherentism ===
{{main|Foundationalism|Coherentism}}
[[File:Foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism2.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Diagram with sections for foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism, each depicting the relations between beliefs|Diagram of foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism with arrows symbolizing support between beliefs. According to foundationalism, some basic beliefs are justified without support from other beliefs. According to coherentism, justification requires that beliefs mutually support each other. According to infinitism, justification requires that beliefs form infinite support chains.<ref>{{harvnb|Bradley|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qKXDCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA170 170–171]}}</ref>]]
Foundationalists and coherentists disagree about the structure of knowledge.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Audi|1988|pp=407–408}} | {{harvnb|Stairs|2017|pp=155–156}} | {{harvnb|Margolis|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BeyuCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214 214]}} | {{harvnb|Fei|2023|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ot6uEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA79 79]}} }}</ref>{{efn|Both can be understood as responses to the [[regress problem]].<ref>{{harvnb|Bradley|2015|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qKXDCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA170 170]}}</ref> In ancient philosophy, the underlying problem was discussed as [[Agrippa's trilemma]]. The trilemma distinguises three ways of providing reasons for a statement: finding a justification that needs no further reason, circular reasoning by repeating a justification stated earlier, or providing an infinite justification chain.<ref>{{harvnb|Klein|2011|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=1ETRCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA484 484–485]}}</ref>}} Foundationalism distinguishes between basic and non-basic beliefs. A belief is basic if it is justified directly, meaning that its validity does not depend on the support of other beliefs.{{efn|The theory of classical foundationalism has a stronger requirement by saying that basic beliefs are [[Self-evidence|self-evident]] or indubitable.<ref>{{harvnb|Blaauw|Pritchard|2005|p=64}}</ref>}} A belief is non-basic if it is justified by another belief.<ref name="auto7">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Stairs|2017|pp=155–156}} | {{harvnb|Margolis|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=BeyuCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214 214]}} }}</ref> For example, the belief that it rained last night is a non-basic belief if it is inferred from the observation that the street is wet.<ref>{{harvnb|Stairs|2017|p=155}}</ref> According to foundationalism, basic beliefs are the foundation on which all other knowledge is built while non-basic beliefs act as the superstructure resting on this foundation.<ref name="auto7"/>

Coherentists reject the distinction between basic and non-basic beliefs, saying that the justification of any belief depends on other beliefs. They assert that a belief must align with other beliefs to amount to knowledge. This occurs when beliefs are consistent and support each other. According to coherentism, justification is a [[Holism|holistic]] aspect determined by the whole system of beliefs, which resembles an interconnected web.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Stairs|2017|pp=156–157}} | {{harvnb|O'Brien|2006|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=TOQcebWMstwC&pg=PA77 77]}} | {{harvnb|Slote|2021|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dCASEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24 24]}} }}</ref>

[[Foundherentism]] is an intermediary position combining elements of both foundationalism and coherentism. It accepts the distinction between basic and non-basic beliefs while asserting that the justification of non-basic beliefs depends on coherence with other beliefs.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ruppert|Schlüter|Seide|2016|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=nF2mCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA59 59]}} | {{harvnb|Tramel|2008|pp=215–216}} }}</ref>

[[Infinitism]] presents a less common alternative perspective on the structure of knowledge. It agrees with coherentism that there are no basic beliefs while rejecting the view that beliefs can support each other in a [[Circular reasoning|circular manner]]. Instead, it argues that beliefs form infinite justification chains, in which each link of the chain supports the belief following it and is supported by the belief preceding it.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Bradley|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qKXDCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA170 170–171]}} | {{harvnb|Stairs|2017|pp=155–156}} }}</ref>