My current understanding is that there are three main schools of thought with regards to how a belief can be justified. The three main theories are:
Foundationalism, which argues that justified means arising through deduction from a most basic set of beliefs
Coherentism, which argues that justification is a property of a set of beliefs, not of individual beliefs
Process Reliabilism, which argues that a belief is justified if it arises from a reliable belief-forming process
I have read online that there is a natural trichotomy between Foundationalism, Coherentism, and "Infinitism". This is because of the following argument:
P1. Every belief must be justified from some other belief.
P2. Beliefs cannot be justified by self-reference or circular reasoning.
P3. Beliefs cannot be justified in an infinite chain of justification.
C. Beliefs cannot be justified.
P1 is rejected by foundationalists, P2 by coherentists, and P3 by infinitists.
What I'm having trouble understanding is, how does Process Reliabilism fit into this? Isn't Process Reliabilism basically the same as Foundationalism, as both involve individual beliefs being justified from more fundamental beliefs through some belief-forming process?