more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 8894

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

Full Idea

The 3rd standard objection to coherence is the demand for a meta-justification for coherence, a reason for thinking that justification on the basis of the coherentist view of justification is in fact likely to lead to believing the truth.

Gist of Idea

Coherentists must give a reason why coherent justification is likely to lead to the truth

Source

Laurence Bonjour (A Version of Internalist Foundationalism [2003], 3.2)

Book Ref

Bonjour,L/Sosa,E: 'Epistemic Justification' [Blackwells 2003], p.54


A Reaction

Some coherentists respond by adopting a coherence theory of truth, which strikes me as extremely unwise. There must be an underlying optimistic view, centred on the principle of sufficient reason, that reality itself is coherent. I like Idea 8618.

Related Idea

Idea 8618 Coherence is a justification if truth is its best explanation (not skill in creating fiction) [Elgin]


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]