Coherentism is a theory of justification that emphasizes the role of coherence in justifying beliefs. According to coherentism, a belief is justified if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs, where each belief supports and is supported by the others.

Foundationalism is a theory of justification that holds that all knowledge is ultimately based on self-evident truths, which are beliefs that are known to be true without requiring any further justification.

René Descartes is most closely associated with the theory of foundationalism. He argued that all knowledge is ultimately based on self-evident truths, which he famously expressed in the statement 'Cogito, ergo sum' ('I think, therefore I am').

The problem of infinite regress in the context of justification of knowledge refers to the situation where a belief is justified by another belief, which in turn is justified by a third belief, and so on, without any ultimate foundation. This leads to an endless chain of justification, where each belief is dependent on another belief for its justification.

Empiricism is a theory of justification that emphasizes the role of evidence in justifying beliefs. According to empiricism, a belief is justified if it is supported by evidence derived from sense experience.

Skepticism is a theory of justification that holds that knowledge is impossible. Skeptics argue that there is no way to know anything for certain, and that all beliefs are ultimately unjustified.

David Hume is most closely associated with the theory of skepticism. He argued that all knowledge is derived from sense experience, and that sense experience can only provide us with beliefs that are probable, not certain.

The problem of induction in the context of justification of knowledge refers to the problem of justifying the belief that the future will resemble the past. This is a problem because we cannot know for certain that the future will be like the past, and yet we often rely on this assumption in order to make predictions and decisions.

Pragmatism is a theory of justification that emphasizes the role of practical consequences in justifying beliefs. According to pragmatism, a belief is justified if it leads to successful action or practical outcomes.

The coherence theory of truth is a theory of truth that holds that truth is a property of beliefs that are consistent with each other. According to the coherence theory, a belief is true if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs, where each belief supports and is supported by the others.

F.H. Bradley is most closely associated with the coherence theory of truth. He argued that truth is a property of beliefs that are consistent with each other, and that the ultimate test of truth is the coherence of a belief system as a whole.

The correspondence theory of truth is a theory of truth that holds that truth is a property of beliefs that correspond to reality. According to the correspondence theory, a belief is true if it accurately represents the way things are in the world.

Bertrand Russell is most closely associated with the correspondence theory of truth. He argued that truth is a property of beliefs that correspond to reality, and that the ultimate test of truth is the correspondence of a belief to the facts.

The pragmatic theory of truth is a theory of truth that holds that truth is a property of beliefs that are useful in practice. According to the pragmatic theory, a belief is true if it leads to successful action or practical outcomes.

William James is most closely associated with the pragmatic theory of truth. He argued that truth is a property of beliefs that are useful in practice, and that the ultimate test of truth is the success of a belief in guiding action.