Is Rorty attacking a strawman? Empiricism / Epistemic foundationalism is not popular now:
“Default and challenge” structure a way of avoiding Agrippan trilemma.
Bayesianism sees all justification as comparative (never have to justify one’s prior commitments).
though the problem of semantics is still open if it is to not be representationalist
Naturalism + representationalism remains unchallenged.
picking an ontologically privileged base vocabulary
So Rorty and Pryce need to do one or both of:
Argue independently for pragmatism, then use that to attack representationalism without passing through foundationalism
Argue independently against representationalism and propose pragmatism as the best alternative approach