Foundationalism, Coherentism, and the Justification of Knowledge

In this paper, we consider the position of fundamentalism and consistency and believe that a form of weak fundamentalism is one of the most satisfying choices for avoiding the most malicious thing as an effective theory of knowledge controversy . A viable way to return to a problem Skepticism fundamentalism solves the problem of infinite regression as follows. If someone O is proved to have a belief X, then X must be proved by another belief Y.

Fundamentalism says that the structure of knowledge and reason is like a building consisting of a superstructure built on the foundation. According to consistency, this metaphor is wrong. The structure of knowledge and reason is similar to the network, where the strength of any given region depends on the strength of the surrounding region. Therefore, coherent denies any basic belief. As we saw in the previous section, there are two different basic ideas. Therefore, there are two corresponding ways to build coherence. It is refusing the basicity of stupidity or denying the basis of recognition. We consider the first coherence as a denial of the basicity of doxastic.

(Iii) occurs from (i), and (iv) from (ii). An uncompromising foundation refuses to rely on consistency. This fundamental belief that the basic belief p is a belief not dependent on any other reason to believe other propositions q. This fundamentalism can be called independent fundamentalism because it claims that the rationale of the fundamental belief is completely independent of the defense of any other beliefs. The logic of conflict between fundamentalism and consistency seems to indicate that the conflict between the two views ultimately leads to a conflict between dependenceism and independence fundamentalism.

Experience basement is supported by case studies such as Blue Hat. It seems reasonable to think that such an example is based on perceived experience. However, they do not mediate between consistency and independence fundamentalism, because none of these ideas tends to perceive experiences to explain why perceptual beliefs are reasonable . Finally, fundamentalism can be supported by proposing opposition to consistency. A notable objection is that consistency does not guarantee that a reasonable belief system is in contact with the reality. This objection arises from the fact that the novel is entirely coherent. So why do you think the consistency of the belief system is the reason to believe that the belief in the system tends to be true?