1
Johnell Brown
Professor Olivia
Knowledge and methods
06 December 2020
Foundationalism, Coherentism, Internalism, and Externalism
Foundationalism can be described as forming beliefs based upon beliefs formed around the
external world. This structure of knowledge is derived from the senses and can be viewed as
A by-product of our daily lives. An example of this would be to come to the conclusion its
summer from the apparent fragrance of sweet roses and the accumulating pollen on the ground.
While coherentism is the structure of each belief being justified by its connection to similar and
Justified beliefs. Coherentism could best be explained by the concept of basing your belief off of
A preexisting belief. You would be justified in your belief that your friend Sarah failed her test,
If the belief that Sarah is always in a good mood after a test. The justification would be her
Sadness for the belief she failed and your justification for that belief is she is never sad after.
This is a coherent system of belief. Coherentism has a dependence on other beliefs and whether
or not they can stem from justifiable reasons. As for Internalism, this is a form of justification,
Whether or not you derived your reasoning from a mental state is what makes justification a
form of internalism. Internalism is how you could mentally arrive at a conclusion based upon the
factors affecting the individual internally. In contrast to this, Externalism is the formation of
justification from factors stemming from the external world. These factors are the information
delivered by our senses. Observations and deductions accompanied by supporting data that can
be experienced are what Externalism can be described as. In my paper, I plan to focus on the
2
differences and similarities shared between foundationalism and coherentism. I would like to
first detail what comprises foundationalism and provide re-enforcing arguments and
accompanying cons , Then doing the same for coherentism. After which I will come to a
conclusion on which of these two I support and provide reasoning as to why I believe it to be.
For the second portion of my paper, I plan to detail and cover Internalism and externalism. These
will be compared in a manner similar to how I plan to approach coherentism and
Foundationalism. I will be showcasing the pros and cons of internalism and externalism
individually then comparing the two to justify why I feel is more one is more adequate than the
other when arriving at justifiable belief.
Foundationalism has many branching forms dependent on the foundationist asked. Today I will
be describing the modest form of foundationalism. When trying to explain how modest
foundationalism, Feldman’s description is what instantly appears to me. “ the basic beliefs are
ordinary perceptual beliefs about the external world” as Feldman describes it, conveys that in
order to form a belief, one just needs to arrive at a justified conclusion based on the sensations
and experiences of the individual. These are based on the external world and can be simplified
by saying “ a belief based on interaction. The foundationlist thought process can be expressed
further by backtracking to the previously mentiod belief of summer. The sight of bees , the smell
of freshly cut grass, the sweat accumulating from impressions the scorching sun are the senses
relaying suitable information for you to arrive at the conclusion its spring. These experiences are
based on the individual but can be reinforced by the fact that they can be experienced by others
as well simultaneously. This can strengthen a belief cause it shows the belief was derived from a
external , one that is shared by many rather than one individual. Where foundationalism fails is
3
that it lacks the connection based upon other coherent beliefs. An example would be that if
foundationlist thought it was summer because it was hot outside and that very heat was a weather
abnormality, then the belief is incorrect. It is to say the senses can lie , one can be fooled into
false beliefs due to the lack of awareness in the presence of a false reality. This is
foundationlism’s achilles heel. A belief based upon a “false positive” affirmation provided by the
senses can lead to inadequate beliefs being birthed. If you do not see any birds outside , does that
mean all the birds are gone ? how would you be certain ? This is an extreme case but it
adequately relays the flaws present in foundationalism. In contrast to this , Coherentism is the
belief system based upon other beliefs previously formed. Coherentism can be seen as a belief
form supported by the subject of science. Science is comprised of beliefs linked by natural laws
which are formed from other beliefs such as an individual must expel heat to produce work , this
heat is can not infinite due to the imbalance with the first law of thermodynaics , thus it is
impossible for one to run forever. This is the strength of coherentism , its systematic links
enforce the justability of a belief. But this is not to say the form is flawless. When one belief
needs to have reliance on another belief , they become nearely useless when confronted by a
foreign belief that resembles no known belief and lacks any connection to previous knowledge.
If we spent our whole lives on earth , then how would beliefs formed from another part of the
universe be conformed to the justification we currently have. Forcing beliefs where the
justification can’t fit can be argued that is even a belief at all. Coherentism requires the system of
justified beliefs. In another portion of Feldmans readings he states “ only beliefs can justify other
beliefs , Nothing other than a belief can contribute to justification” when describing the form in
which coherentism takes. This can be seen as a belief in its pure form can not be a belief unless
accompanied by another justified belief. This is a stark difference in relation to foundationlism in
4
which there are some form of basic beliefs that can assist us in creating beliefs. In
foundationalism, Chisholm the american philosopher entails that “whenever one is in the state
and believes that one is in it, one’s belief is maximally justified”. This can be viewed as if one
believes in the false reality then their beliefs derived from that reality are justified. An example
could be the simulation theory. If we exist in a simulated reality , then our beliefs contrived in
the simulation are just as real the beliefs of those outside of the simulation. While coherentism
would argue that the very basis of our beliefs lack the support of previously created beliefs and
thus would conform our beliefs to the void of inaccuracy. A similar state to paradox , in which if
there are no justified beliefs in existence then there can not be any beliefs formed from the
individuals. I support the the idea of foundationalism. The reason being that if our perections are
based on the world around us , and we can all experience it, the belief has shared support from
others. For me, its just the same as basing an belief off of a preexisting belief. Coherentism says
we can’t know what aliens could possibly look like due to lack of a justified belief while being
on earth. While foundationalism could say they could look like us if they interact with their
world in the same fashion as we experienced on earth. These beliefs forms both share the similar
base that they are both reliant on the idea to be justified. The manner in they are justified can be
described by the other to topics I plan on covering.
The two topics of interests I shall now cover are the internalism and externalism methods of
justability. How beliefs are described in our moden culture , they are meaningless without
justification. Internalism focuses on the mental state and factors affecting it while forming a
belief. A belief formed through the relation of the individuals self reflection or mental capacity is
in itself a internalist belief. Internalism can be showcased with an example of a person who
commits a crime. The internalist can determine the individuals actions could be determined by
5
the state of the persons mind and this could justify why they would they commit it. Internalism
seeks to justify the actions and outcomes of an individual by searching for the justification from
the persons motivations and desires. In the world , to come to a conclusion you need to have
sufficient information on the topic. This is important cause you can find this premise in
internalism. In internalism , from SBerker “ the internalism can be described in two different
forms, these forms are accessibility and mentalism”. The two branches of internalism form the
mental justification for a belief and anything outside of these boundaries would be classified as a
external justification. For accessibility this is described as the subject must have special access to
the info on the topic for their justification to be reasonable and properly support their belief. In
contrast to this , mentalism is the internal things that contribute to the justification of a belief. An
example that can help to explain internalism would be that an individual has fell down the stairs.
The justification that he fell using internalism would be that the person was currently not
attentive due to a recent break up would be mentalism justification. For the justification of the
accessibility would be that the individual has had access that no other individual has access to.
This would make the justification internal and would lead the individual to a coherent belief.
Goldman claims “every traditional form of internalism involves some appeal to logical relations,
probabilistic relations, None of these logical or probabilistic relations is itself a mental state”
This counters the claim that justification could be internal for an individual, this is caused the
conclusions are derived from previous external beliefs. If the justification of the belief is by
product of a external justification that would make it a coherent external belief. Internalism pro
are that it can achieve status of a justification for a belief as long as you as an individual are
capable of gaining access or if it resides in your mind as a definite support of a belief. Its reliance
on the certification of the mental state is weak at best at this is the argument against its usage.
6
The other topic I would finally like to cover would be externalism. Externalism is the
justification of beliefs that are derived from things that exist in our world. These could be laws ,
principles, actions , etc. For externalism , the justification is something that the individual can
only access by experiencing rather than finding the justification in themselves. For an example of
an external justification could be that the climate around an individual led him to act the way
they do. For a more specific example, we can look at the effect that low income areas has on
individuals. One stemming from a low income area may be more inclined to take risks due to a
higher necessity than someone from an area of higher income. This is to say one would be more
tempted to not abide by the laws if the laws have created an atmosphere that has negatively
effected them. The external justification as to why they would be tempted to commit a crime
would be the poor state of the neighborhood. Externalism is powerful in that it can be showcased
and explored by more than one individual. A similar pro to foundationlism . For this reason , I
would prefer the justification of externalism.
In conclusion, Foundationallism is the preferred belief system for me. It is comprised of the
exerpeinces of the individual and in my opinion pairs perfectly with externalism. The idea of
arriving at a belief from the experience of the senses allows me to adequately interact with the
world around me. Whether our reality may be real or not , my beliefs are absolute. This is the
belief that will drive me further in life. In contrast , im not too fond of the preexisting dependent
nature of coheretism and the reliance of self justification of internalism approach to life
problems.
7
Goldman, Alvin, 1986. Epistemology and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press
Parent, T. “Externalism and Self-Knowledge.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Stanford University, 27 June 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledgeexternalism/.
Feldman - Coherentism (60-6) + Foundationalism (70-1)
Foley, Richard. “EPISTEMOLOGY.” NYU/ Macmillen.
Pappas, George. “Internalist vs. Externalist Conceptions of Epistemic Justification.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 8 Aug. 2014,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-intext/.