David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 122 (485):135-170 (2013)
Coherentism maintains that coherent beliefs are more likely to be true than incoherent beliefs, and that coherent evidence provides more confirmation of a hypothesis when the evidence is made coherent by the explanation provided by that hypothesis. Although probabilistic models of credence ought to be well-suited to justifying such claims, negative results from Bayesian epistemology have suggested otherwise. In this essay we argue that the connection between coherence and confirmation should be understood as a relation mediated by the causal relationships among the evidence and a hypothesis, and we offer a framework for doing so by fitting together probabilistic models of coherence, confirmation, and causation. We show that the causal structure among the evidence and hypothesis is sometimes enough to determine whether the coherence of the evidence boosts confirmation of the hypothesis, makes no difference to it, or even reduces it. We also show that, ceteris paribus, it is not the coherence of the evidence that boosts confirmation, but rather the ratio of the coherence of the evidence to the coherence of the evidence conditional on a hypothesis.
|Keywords||Coherentism Confirmation Causal Bayes Nets|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines (2013). Coherence and Confirmation Through Causation. Mind 122 (485):135-170.
Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines (2011). Causation, Association and Confirmation. In Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao Gonzalez, Dennis Dieks & Thomas Uebe (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. Springer. 37--51.
Tomoji Shogenji (2005). The Role of Coherence of Evidence in the Non-Dynamic Model of Confirmation. Erkenntnis 63 (3):317 - 333.
Tomoji Shogenji (2007). Why Does Coherence Appear Truth-Conducive? Synthese 157 (3):361 - 372.
Franz Dietrich & Luca Moretti (2005). On Coherent Sets and the Transmission of Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 72 (3):403-424.
Maximillian Schlosshauer & Gregory Wheeler (2011). Focused Correlation, Confirmation, and the Jigsaw Puzzle of Variable Evidence. Philosophy of Science 78 (3):376-92.
Luca Moretti (2007). Ways in Which Coherence is Confirmation Conducive. Synthese 157 (3):309 - 319.
Aysel Dogan (2005). Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):243 - 259.
James Hawthorne (2011). Confirmation Theory. In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm Forster (eds.), Philosophy of Statistics, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 7. Elsevier.
Vincenzo Crupi, Roberto Festa & and Tommaso Mastropasqua (2008). Bayesian Confirmation by Uncertain Evidence: A Reply to Huber . British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):201-211.
Tomoji Shogenji (2013). Coherence of the Contents and the Transmission of Probabilistic Support. Synthese 190 (13):2525-2545.
Aron Edidin (1988). From Relative Confirmation to Real Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):265-271.
Patrick Maher (1996). Subjective and Objective Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 63 (2):149-174.
Added to index2011-10-24
Total downloads24 ( #61,046 of 1,089,104 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #13,522 of 1,089,104 )
How can I increase my downloads?