Final answer:
Coherentism and foundationalism are both theories in epistemology that describe how beliefs may be justified but differ in their structures; coherentism is likened to a web of interrelated beliefs without foundational beliefs, whereas foundationalism relies on basic, self-justified beliefs to support other beliefs.
Step-by-step explanation:
Similarities and Differences Between Coherentism and Foundationalism
When discussing the structure of belief systems in epistemology, we encounter coherentism and foundationalism as two distinct theories for justifying beliefs. Coherentism posits that a belief is justified if it forms part of a coherent web of mutually supporting beliefs, much like the strands of a web. This view suggests that the strength of a belief comes from its relationship to the entire network of beliefs. On the other hand, foundationalism argues that there is a base, or a foundation, of fundamental beliefs that are self-justified and non-inferential, and that other, non-basic beliefs are justified by being linked back to these foundational beliefs.
A major similarity between the two is that both aim to provide a mechanism through which beliefs might be justified. However, coherentism rejects the need for foundational beliefs, while foundationalism is dependent upon them. One of the key differences is how they handle the issue of infinite regress; foundationalism allows for a termination at basic beliefs, but coherentism suggests that justifyings can be a network without a beginning point. Coherentism potentially faces issues of circularity, while foundationalism must address the challenge of defining and justifying foundational beliefs.