The big idea: The whole topic keeps coming back to one word: justification — having good reasons.
A problem opens up: But push on any reason and a problem opens up. Why believe it? Because of another reason. And why believe that? Another reason again. It never seems to stop — and that threatens to make justification impossible.
The regress problem: You believe the bus comes at 9. Why? The timetable says so. Why trust the timetable? The company published it. Why trust the company? … Each answer just needs a new reason underneath it. This endless chain is the regress problem. If it never ends, no belief is ever fully justified — and the sceptic wins.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Start Studying Free Full access to Aimnova Pro · cancel anytime
Two big theories answer the regress in opposite ways — one stops the chain, the other loops it.
Foundationalism: some beliefs are basic: Foundationalism says the chain stops at bedrock. A few beliefs are basic — justified all by themselves, needing no further reason (like 'I'm in pain right now' or a simple truth of maths). Everything else is a building resting on those foundations. The regress ends because you hit the ground floor.
Coherentism: beliefs support each other
Coherentism rejects the whole idea of a bedrock. There are no 'basic' beliefs; instead, a belief is justified if it fits with all your others in one connected web — like threads holding a spider's web taut. Nothing is the foundation; everything supports everything else. The regress isn't stopped — it's turned into a supporting loop.
Checkpoint — the two shapes: In one line: foundationalism stops the regress at basic beliefs; coherentism loops it into a web where beliefs support each other. Now a different move entirely.
Never wonder what to study next
Get a personalized daily plan based on your exam date, progress, and weak areas. We'll tell you exactly what to review each day.
Try Free Study PlanYour first topic is free to keep • No credit card required
Both views so far assume justification is inside you — reasons you could point to. A third view breaks that assumption.
Internal justification
- Your reasons must be available to you — things you could state
- Foundationalism & coherentism are both internal
- Worry: a reliable knower who can't articulate their reasons seems left out
External justification (reliabilism)
- A belief is justified if it comes from a reliable process
- Good eyesight, memory, expert judgement — even if you can't explain them
- Worry: you could be justified without knowing why you are
Reliabilism: justified by a reliable process: Reliabilism is the leading external view. What justifies your belief that there's a bird outside isn't a chain of reasons you could recite — it's that your eyesight is a reliable process that usually gets things right.
Why it's attractive
- It neatly dodges the regress (no chain of reasons needed)
- It fits how a child or an expert can know without arguing for it
- It links straight back to Gettier — the stopped clock fails because it wasn't a reliable process
Go further — higher-level insight: See how reliabilism reframes the whole topic. Linking all three across the topic is exactly the synthesis a §B essay rewards.
The links
- Gettier (3.2.2): it ties justification (this micro) to Gettier — the stopped clock fails because the process wasn't reliable
- Scepticism (3.2.1): it lowers the sceptic's bar — you don't need certainty or a complete chain of reasons, just a process that reliably tracks the truth
Checkpoint — the split: In one line: internal views want reasons you can state; reliabilism says a reliable process is enough, even if you can't spell out why. Three theories now sit on the table.
How Section B works: Section B is the optional-theme essay [25]. Here is how it works, then a full worked plan.
What to expect
- A choice of essay questions on the optional themes (Epistemology is one) [25].
- No stimulus — just a claim to evaluate, using your own knowledge.
- 'Evaluate the claim that…' is the classic wording, and the whole of 3.2 arms you for it.
IB-style questionEvaluate[25 marks]
Evaluate the claim that knowledge requires beliefs to rest on secure foundations.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Describing the three theories instead of arguing between them. 2. Forgetting the regress — it's the reason the whole debate exists. 3. Only one theory — top bands need tension. 4. No conclusion — decide, with a reason. 5. Name-dropping — a theory earns nothing without its argument.