From the above criticisms, it can be seen that the idea that beliefs correspond to states of affairs is problematic. This is because what we get are not 'states of affairs' at all, but only other perceptions that in turn require foundations. What can they be checked against?

Idealism, which if you remember argued that our perceptions do not correspond to a separate reality, argues that there are no foundational beliefs. Rather, our beliefs exist in a network of interrelated perceptions. From this point of view, no one belief is more important than another, but throw light upon one another.

There are 3 main problems with this view:

1. If false beliefs outweigh true ones, this would make the incorrect conclusion the correct one - according to the coherence theory of truth. For instance, if I believe that the 1969 moon landings were faked in a photographic studio, I might be able to back this up with selective evidence. If I then reach a point where the evidence for this is more than for the belief that the moon landings took place, I would be forced to conclude that it was the truth.

2. Coherence theory is also circular. If a certain belief is true because it coheres with others, what do they cohere with? This is another example of an infinite regress. Also, since coherence theory is not a foundational theory, we cannot appeal to one or a select number of beliefs over the others, because all beliefs are equal.

3. What does coherence itself consist of? However, if someone were to establish criteria for coherence, this in itself would only be another believe, and so subject to the same criticisms.