more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The best explanation of coherence (where the components of a coherent account must be mutually consistent, cotenable and supportive) is that the account is at least roughly true.
Gist of Idea
Statements that are consistent, cotenable and supportive are roughly true
Source
Catherine Z. Elgin (Non-foundationalist epistemology [2005], p.158)
Book Ref
'Contemporary Debates in Epistemology', ed/tr. Steup,M/Sosa,E [Blackwell 2005], p.158
A Reaction
Note that she is NOT employing a coherence account of truth (which I take to be utterly wrong). It is notoriously difficult to define coherence. If the components must be 'tenable', they have epistemic status apart from their role in coherence.
| 8616 | How can multiple statements, none of which is tenable, conjoin to yield a tenable conclusion? [Elgin] |
| 8617 | Statements that are consistent, cotenable and supportive are roughly true [Elgin] |
| 8618 | Coherence is a justification if truth is its best explanation (not skill in creating fiction) [Elgin] |