I put forward the following argument in the spirit of curiosity. On the face of it, the argument gives a conclusive reductio ad absurdum of any coherence theory of justification. But that cannot be right, can it?
There are finite sets of beliefs such that each member of the set is epistemically supported by some other members (and nothing else). (Coherentism)
Comment: A belief b(p) is epistemically supported by the belief b(q) iff b(p)'s justifiedness or reasonableness (for a subject at a time) consists in part in b(p) standing in some relation of dependence to b(q). Exactly whatthat dependence relation is will be a matter of debate amongst coherentists. While a coherentist will typically prefer to say that a belief is justified in virtue of its being a member of a coherent set of...