The quest for knowledge has long haunted philosophers, with the traditional definition of “justified true belief” (JTB) serving as a compass for centuries. However, the JTB account faces limitations, prompting the search for alternative frameworks. We shall embark on this quest, scrutinizing both foundationalism and coherentism as potential solutions before venturing into less charted territory: pragmatism and reliabilism.

JTB’s Shortcomings: Cracks in the Compass

While JTB seems intuitively appealing, its cracks become evident upon closer examination. Consider the following scenarios:

• Gettier Cases: These thought experiments expose cases where individuals hold justified true beliefs due to luck or coincidence, not genuine understanding. For example, someone might believe it’s raining based on a reliable weather report, only to discover it’s sunny. Their belief was justified (based on the report) and true, but did it constitute genuine knowledge?
• Internal/External Justification: Can internal justification, like an intuition, ever suffice for knowledge, or does external grounding in evidence always remain essential?

These challenges reveal JTB’s incompleteness, prompting us to explore alternative frameworks for navigating the treacherous terrain of knowledge.

Foundationalism: Seeking Bedrock Beliefs

Foundationalism seeks to build knowledge upon a bedrock of self-evident or incorrigible beliefs. These foundational beliefs, like our immediate grasp of sensory data, are held to be directly justified and independent of other beliefs. All other beliefs are then justified by their coherence with these foundational ones.

Strengths:

• Provides an intuitive model: The idea of building knowledge on solid ground resonates with the scientific emphasis on evidence and verification.
• Offers clarity and structure: By identifying foundational beliefs, foundationalism offers a clear hierarchy of justification, making it easier to analyze the validity of knowledge claims.

Weaknesses:

• Regress problem: Foundationalists struggle to identify a definitive set of incorrigible beliefs without falling into an infinite regress of justification. How do we justify the foundational beliefs themselves?
• Dogmatism and circularity: Insistence on certain foundational beliefs can lead to dogmatism, while justifying other beliefs solely by their coherence with these foundations risks circularity.

Coherentism: Embracing the Web of Beliefs

Coherentism abandons the search for foundational beliefs, arguing that the justification of a belief arises from its coherence with the broader web of our beliefs. A belief gains strength by fitting seamlessly into a consistent and interconnected system.

Strengths:

• Avoids the regress problem: By eschewing foundationalism’s search for absolute certainties, coherentism offers a more flexible and pragmatic approach to justification.
• Accounts for Gettier cases: Coherentism can explain away Gettier cases by arguing that the lucky beliefs lack proper integration within the overall web of beliefs.

Weaknesses:

• Subjectivity and relativism: Critics argue that coherentism can lead to relativism, where any internally coherent system, no matter how outlandish, could be considered knowledge.
• Practical limitations: Determining the coherence of a belief within a vast web of interconnected beliefs can be a daunting task, especially in complex domains.

Beyond the Binary: Emerging Voices

While foundationalism and coherentism offer valuable perspectives, exploring alternative frameworks can further enrich our understanding of knowledge. Two compelling contenders arise:

Pragmatism:

• Knowledge is judged by its practical consequences and usefulness in guiding our actions. Beliefs that effectively solve problems and lead to successful outcomes are considered knowledge, regardless of their foundational or coherent nature.
• Strengths: Offers a practical and action-oriented approach to knowledge, highlighting its role in real-world problem-solving.
• Weaknesses: Susceptible to relativism and potential misuse by manipulating consequences for personal gain.

Reliabilism:

• Focuses on the reliability of the process that generates beliefs, rather than their coherence or foundations. A belief is knowledge if it is produced by a reliable process, such as our perceptual faculties or scientific methodologies.