A Critical Analysis of Susan Haack’s Foundherentism in Epistemic Justification

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Susan Haack’s foundherentism, presented in Evidence and Inquiry, attempts to combine the strengths of foundationalism and coherentism in epistemic justification. By critiquing both traditional approaches, Haack offers an alternative model in which the justification of beliefs depends both on experiential evidence and on coherence with the overall belief system. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, examines the theoretical foundations, strengths, and criticisms of foundherentism. The findings indicate that this theory offers significant advantages, including transcending the traditional foundationalism–coherentism dichotomy, flexibility in accommodating new evidence, and the ability to explain the process of scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, serious criticisms have been raised: ambiguity in the role of experience and the risk of reduction to coherentism, the problem of epistemic circularity and possible reduction to weak foundationalism, ambiguity in justification criteria and conflict resolution, and the insufficiency of internalist justification from an externalist perspective. The conclusion is that although foundherentism represents an important step in contemporary epistemology, it faces fundamental challenges as a definitive solution to the problem of epistemic justification.

Graphical Abstract

A Critical Analysis of Susan Haack’s Foundherentism in Epistemic Justification

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Alston, W. P. (1989). Epistemic justification: Essays in the theory of knowledge. Cornell University Press.
Alston, W. P. (1993). The reliability of sense perception. Cornell University Press.
Audi, R. (2010). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge (3rd ed.). Routledge.
BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press.
BonJour, L. (1998). In defense of pure reason: A rationalist account of a priori justification. Cambridge University Press.
BonJour, L. (2003). A version of internalist foundationalism. In L. BonJour & E. Sosa (Eds.), Epistemic justification: Internalism vs. externalism, foundations vs. virtues (pp. 3–96). Blackwell Publishing.
Chisholm, R. M. (1989). Theory of knowledge (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds. & Trans.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 1–62). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641)
Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press.
Haack, S. (1993a). Evidence and inquiry: Towards reconstruction in epistemology. Blackwell Publishers.
Haack, S. (1993b). Double-aspect foundherentism. Analysis, 53(3), 113–122.
Haack, S. (1999). Defending sciencewithin reason: Between scientism and cynicism. Inquiry, 42(3–4), 229–246.
HosseinZadeh, M., Kavandi, S., & Jahed, M. (2018). Existential foundherentism of Mullā Ṣadrā on the component of justification. Contemporary Wisdom, 9(1). (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.30465/cw.2018.3272 
Moser, P. K. (1989). Knowledge and evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Moser, P. K. (1995). Epistemology. In R. Audi (Ed.), The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (pp. 233–238). Cambridge University Press.
Peels, R. (2016). Epistemic justification. In R. Peels & A. Blaauw (Eds.), The epistemic dimensions of ignorance (pp. 79–96). Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, S. (2000). Foundherentism and epistemic rationality. Philosophical Studies, 99(1), 75–92.
Tramel, P. (2008). Haack’s foundherentism is a foundationalism. Synthese, 160(2), 215–228.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Journal of Philosophical Investigations
Volume 20, Issue 55 - Serial Number 55
Articles
Issue 55, Summer 2026
July 2026
Pages 501-518

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics