Graduate studies at Western
Southern Journal of Philosophy 35 (4):463-472 (1997)
|Abstract||In The Structure of Empirical Knowledge , Laurence BonJour argues that coherence among a set of empirical beliefs can provide justification for those beliefs, in the sense of rendering them likely to be true. He also repudiates all forms of foundationalism for empirical beliefs, including what he calls "weak foundationalism" (the weakest form of foundationalism he can find). In the following, I will argue that coherence cannot provide any justification for our beliefs in the manner BonJour suggests unless some form of foundational justification is assumed. In other words, the argument that BonJour gives in favor of the thesis that coherence provides a kind of justification succeeds if and only if some beliefs have (at least weak) foundational justification.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Staffan Angere (2007). The Defeasible Nature of Coherentist Justification. Synthese 157 (3):321 - 335.
Charles B. Cross (1995). Probability, Evidence, and the Coherence of the Whole Truth. Synthese 103 (2):153 - 170.
Peter Murphy, Coherentism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Peter Tramel (2008). Haack's Foundherentism is a Foundationalism. Synthese 160 (2):215 - 228.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. Oxford University Press.
Charles B. Cross (1999). Coherence and Truth Conducive Justification. Analysis 59 (263):186–193.
Erik J. Olsson (1999). Cohering With. Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):273 - 291.
Bruce Russell (2012). Rock Bottom: Coherentism's Soft Spot. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):94-111.
T. Shogenji (2001). The Role of Coherence in Epistemic Justification. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (1):90 – 106.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #21,382 of 739,347 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,186 of 739,347 )
How can I increase my downloads?