Skip to main content
Log in

Ways in which coherence is confirmation conducive

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent works in epistemology show that the claim that coherence is truth conducive – in the sense that, given suitable ceteris paribus conditions, more coherent sets of statements are always more probable – is dubious and possibly false. From this, it does not follows that coherence is a useless notion in epistemology and philosophy of science. Dietrich and Moretti (Philosophy of science 72(3): 403–424, 2005) have proposed a formal of account of how coherence is confirmation conducive—that is, of how the coherence of a set of statements facilitates the confirmation of such statements. This account is grounded in two confirmation transmission properties that are satisfied by some of the measures of coherence recently proposed in the literature. These properties explicate everyday and scientific uses of coherence. In his paper, I review the main findings of Dietrich and Moretti (2005) and define two evidence-gathering properties that are satisfied by the same measures of coherence and constitute further ways in which coherence is confirmation conducive. At least one of these properties vindicates important applications of the notion of coherence in everyday life and in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F., Moretti L. (2005). On coherent sets and the transmission of confirmation. Philosophy of Science, 72(3): 403–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitelson B. (2003). A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis, 63, 194–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitelson B. (2004). Two technical corrections to my coherence measure. Manuscript.

  • Kemeny J., Oppenheim P. (1952). Degrees of factual support. Philosophy of Science, 19, 307–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L., Leplin J. (1991). Empirical equivalence and underdetermination. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 449–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okasha S. (1997). Laudan and Leplin on empirical equivalence. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 48, 251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson E.J. (2002). What is the problem of coherence and truth?. Journal of Philosophy, 94, 246–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson E.J. (2005). Against coherence: Truth, probability, and justification. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon W.C. (1973). Confirmation. Scientific American, 228, 75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogenji T. (1999). Is coherence truth-conductive?. Analysis, 59, 339–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Moretti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moretti, L. Ways in which coherence is confirmation conducive. Synthese 157, 309–319 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9057-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9057-5

Keywords

Navigation