Minds and Machines 17 (1) (2007)
|Abstract||Theories of moral, and more generally, practical reasoning sometimes draw on the notion of coherence. Admirably, Paul Thagard has attempted to give a computationally detailed account of the kind of coherence involved in practical reasoning, claiming that it will help overcome problems in foundationalist approaches to ethics. The arguments herein rebut the alleged role of coherence in practical reasoning endorsed by Thagard. While there are some general lessons to be learned from the preceding, no attempt is made to argue against all forms of coherence in all contexts. Nor is the usefulness of computational modelling called into question. The point will be that coherence cannot be as useful in understanding moral reasoning as coherentists may think. This result has clear implications for the future of Machine Ethics, a newly emerging subfield of AI.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul Thagard (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):28-47.
Paul Thagard (1998). Ethical Coherence. Philosophical Psychology 11 (4):405 – 422.
Angelo Gilio (2005). Probabilistic Logic Under Coherence, Conditional Interpretations, and Default Reasoning. Synthese 146 (1-2):139 - 152.
P. Thagard & C. P. Shelley (1997). Abductive Reasoning: Logic, Visual Thinking, and Coherence. In [Book Chapter].
Elijah Millgram & Paul Thagard (1996). Deliberative Coherence. Synthese 108 (1):63 - 88.
Amalia Amaya (2011). Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #49,656 of 549,316 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,316 )
How can I increase my downloads?