 Epistemologists want to account for the justification of our beliefs. We do not want to believe at random, we want our beliefs to be justified—that is, we want there to be a reason to believe the propositions we believe. But those reasons will be further propositions, and if our initial belief is to be justified, so surely must the reasons for that belief be, and so we must appeal to yet more propositions, and so on. Many—going back to Sextus Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism PH I, 164–9)—have thought that this cannot proceed ad infinitum, and that the only serious options are Epistemic Foundationalism—the view that there is a class of propositions whose justification does not come via some other justified propositions, and that can provide a reason for everything else we believe—or Epistemic Coherentism—the view that a collection of propositions can collectively be justified in virtue of the web of epistemic relations they stand in to one another. Thus Sosa (1980, 3) says “epistemology must choose between the solid security of the ancient foundationalist pyramid and the risky adventure of the new coherentist raft.” (See the entries on  foundationalist theories of epistemic justification  and  coherentist theories of epistemic justification  for surveys of Epistemic Foundationalism and Epistemic Coherentism, respectively).