David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):136-150 (2012)
In his groundbreaking book, Against Coherence (2005), Erik Olsson presents an ingenious impossibility theorem that appears to show that there is no informative relationship between probabilistic measures of coherence and higher likelihood of truth. Although Olsson's result provides an important insight into probabilistic models of epistemological coherence, the scope of his negative result is more limited than generally appreciated. The key issue is the role conditional independence conditions play within the witness testimony model Olsson uses to establish his result. Olsson maintains that his witness model yields charitable ceteris paribus conditions for any theory of probabilistic coherence. Not so. In fact, Olsson's model, like Bayesian witness models in general, selects a peculiar class of models that are in no way representative of the range of options available to coherence theorists. Recent positive results suggest that there is a way to develop a formal theory of coherence after all. Further, although Bayesian witness models are not conducive to the truth, they are conducive to reliability
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Erik J. Olsson & Stefan Schubert (2007). Reliability Conducive Measures of Coherence. Synthese 157 (3):297 - 308.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). The Impossibility of Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):387 - 412.
Tomoji Shogenji (2008). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, Justification. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1):292-296.
Wouter Meijs & Igor Douven (2007). On the Alleged Impossibility of Coherence. Synthese 157 (3):347 - 360.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. Oxford University Press.
Stefan Schubert (2012). Is Coherence Conducive to Reliability? Synthese 187 (2):607-621.
Jonah N. Schupbach (2008). On the Alleged Impossibility of Bayesian Coherentism. Philosophical Studies 141 (3):323-331.
Stefan Schubert (2012). Coherence Reasoning and Reliability: A Defense of the Shogenji Measure. Synthese 187 (2):305-319.
Tomoji Shogenji (2007). Why Does Coherence Appear Truth-Conducive? Synthese 157 (3):361 - 372.
Staffan Angere (2007). The Defeasible Nature of Coherentist Justification. Synthese 157 (3):321 - 335.
Stefan Schubert (2011). Coherence and Reliability: The Case of Overlapping Testimonies. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 74 (2):263-275.
Branden Fitelson (2002). Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539 - 563.
Luc Bovens, Branden Fitelson, Stephan Hartmann & Josh Snyder (2002). Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539-563.
Stephan Hartmann, Luc Bovens, Branden Fitelson & Josh Snyder (2002). Too Odd (Not) to Be True: A Reply to Olsson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539-563.
Erik J. Olsson (2001). Why Coherence is Not Truth-Conducive. Analysis 61 (271):236–241.
Added to index2011-08-14
Total downloads13 ( #99,022 of 1,013,596 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,884 of 1,013,596 )
How can I increase my downloads?