Chisholm's Theory Of Justified True Belief

Belief alone is not enough to say that we have knowledge of what we believe, if we wish to say that we have knowledge of a belief it must be termed as justified belief for us to believe that it is a true belief. For a belief to be justified it must follow a certain standard of principles . Believing and knowing are two different things, belief is not a true indication of the truth and is not sufficient for knowledge if there is no justification. According to Roderick Chisholm’s attempt at revising justified true belief; truth is a necessary condition for knowledge. Attempts at revising the theory of justified true belief all have the same basis that they all require some sort of justification. So following this theory that beliefs have to
The foundationalist’s use the regress argument in knowledge and justification to prove that justification requires basic beliefs which are not supported by any other beliefs but can be used to support other beliefs. They do however disagree with the term of infinite regression as foundationalist’s argue against “infinitism as we never possess an infinite chain of non-repeating actions” They argue that although we are able to carry out justification at several steps, by using the following belief to justify the previous belief, we do not come close to an infinite chain of justifications. Foundationalism claims that there can be basic beliefs that do not need to appeal to other beliefs to be justified. This in turn can stop the problem of regress as the basic beliefs form the foundations from which all knowledge
The foundationalist view to knowledge and justification rests upon justified belief where there does not need to be certainty that the belief itself or the beliefs that follow or precede the belief do not need to be true beliefs but rather a justification, and that basic beliefs may be presumed to be true if there is nothing contrary to what the basic belief assumes. These propositions are formed in a sort of tower where the proposition itself has underlying propositions where at the bottom lays a solid foundation from which the propositions are based on. However if there is a proposition that is on the top of this tower and the previous proposition is proven to be false the proposition itself becomes false and there is no true justification for the propositions but only for the foundation of the tower, which some foundationalist’s such as Hume argue is custom or habit through experience