But S can be justified without such an appeal if p, the information at issue, is related to the body of S's beliefs by cohering with it in a suitable way. We commonly think of justification in terms of a process of 'appealing to evidence,' as is reflected in Lehrer's linkage of justification with answering the question 'How do you know?' To give an answer, one would appeal to evidence. Justification, according to Lehrer, need not be a process at all. The first attack is a denial of the claim made in step 4. Lehrer wishes to avoid skepticism, so he tries to counter this argument. Therefore, if there are no self-justified beliefs, then there are no justified beliefs.If there is no process that produces justification, then no beliefs are justified.Therefore, if there are no self-justified beliefs, then there is no process that produces justification.An endless or circular process cannot produce justification.If there are no self-justified beliefs, then the process of justification is either endless or else loops back on itself in a circle.An argument for this conclusion can be generated easily, based on Aristotle's 'logical' motivation for foundationalism.

It may be that if there are no self-justified beliefs, then there are no justified beliefs whatsoever. The rejection of foundationalism leaves open the possibility of skepticism. Mattey, Senior Lecturer, UC Davis Philosophy Department Lecture Notes, Lehrer's Theory of Knowledge, Chapter 5, The Explanatory Coherence TheoryĢ002 Lecture Notes, Lehrer's Theory of Knowledge, second edition Chapter 5, The Explanatory Coherence Theoryīy G.

Coherence theory of truth examples