Skepticism Vs Foundationalism

I believe that Foundationalism has a better chance of dealing with Mike’s case about skepticism. Foundationalism can prove everything based on facts and evidence. For example, in the story a skeptic could say, “how do you know that what we experience is real?” and a foundationalist will keep giving reasons such as the fact that we are talking right now, and so on. In relation to the story, one might say, “how do you know that Mike’s brain isn’t in a vat?” and the foundationalist replies by using facts, like no one saw them dissecting his brain, or that he is here right now. I believe that the skeptic questions of “how do you know…?” are not backed up by any evidence because they reach into possibilities and what ifs, but a foundationalist could
arguably come up with an answer to each doubt because that individual has concrete evidence to use. Furthermore, in foundationalism, even if a person agrees with the skeptic and says, “Okay. I agree that our brains are in vats”, I don’t believe that the skeptic has a way of providing the evidence for that. Moreover, I think that Coherentism does not have as good of a chance as Foundationalism at dealing with skepticism because according Coherentism, a belief can be justified even if it is not supported by basic beliefs. The issue with that is that I believe in scenarios such as Mike’s, a basic belief is necessary. Ultimately, Coherentism is circular reasoning, so the evidence for believing something ends up not being supported. This is why I believe that Foundationalism is the way to attack this situation.