more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 2734

[filed under theme 13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 5. Coherentism / c. Coherentism critique ]

Full Idea

A schizophrenic who thinks he is Napoleon, if he has a completely consistent story with enough interlocking details, may have a belief system that is superbly coherent.

Gist of Idea

A consistent madman could have a very coherent belief system

Source

Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], VII p.194)

Book Ref

Audi,Robert: 'Epistemology: a contemporary introduction' [Routledge 1998], p.194


A Reaction

This is an exaggeration, but the fact is that one isolated lie is totally coherent, so coherence can only emerge when a system is large. Sense experience must be central to coherence.


The 23 ideas with the same theme [criticisms of the coherentist view]:

Schematic minds think thoughts are truer if they slot into a scheme [Nietzsche]
If undetailed, 'coherence' is just a vague words that covers all possible arguments [Ewing]
Coherent justification seems to require retrieving all our beliefs simultaneously [Goldman]
Fully comprehensive beliefs may not be knowledge [Sosa]
If we have to appeal explicitly to epistemic norms, that will produce an infinite regress [Pollock]
My incoherent beliefs about art should not undermine my very coherent beliefs about physics [Bonjour]
Coherence seems to justify empirical beliefs about externals when there is no external input [Bonjour]
Coherentists must give a reason why coherent justification is likely to lead to the truth [Bonjour]
Coherence theory must give a foundational status to coherence itself [Williams,M]
Why should diverse parts of our knowledge be connected? [Williams,M]
Maths may be consistent with observations, but not coherent [Audi,R]
It is very hard to show how much coherence is needed for justification [Audi,R]
A consistent madman could have a very coherent belief system [Audi,R]
Coherence theories fail, because they can't accommodate perception as the basis of knowledge [Pollock/Cruz]
Coherence theories isolate justification from the world [Pollock/Cruz]
Individualistic coherentism lacks access to all of my beliefs, or critical judgement of my assessment [Kusch]
Individual coherentism cannot generate the necessary normativity [Kusch]
My justifications might be very coherent, but totally unconnected to the world [Cardinal/Hayward/Jones]
Mere agreement of testimonies is not enough to make truth very likely [Olsson]
Coherence is only needed if the information sources are not fully reliable [Olsson]
A purely coherent theory cannot be true of the world without some contact with the world [Olsson]
Extending a system makes it less probable, so extending coherence can't make it more probable [Olsson]
Coherence theories struggle with the role of experience [Mittag]