Skip to main content
Log in

Coherence as an ideal of rationality

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Probabilistic coherence is not an absolute requirement of rationality; nevertheless, it is an ideal of rationality with substantive normative import. An idealized rational agent who avoided making implicit logical errors in forming his preferences would be coherent. In response to the challenge, recently made by epistemologists such as Foley and Plantinga, that appeals to ideal rationality render probabilism either irrelevant or implausible, I argue that idealized requirements can be normatively relevant even when the ideals are unattainable, so long as they define a structure that links imperfect and perfect rationality in a way that enables us to make sense of the notion of better approximations to the ideal. I then analyze the notion of approximation to the ideal of coherence by developing a generalized theory of belief functions that allows for incoherence, and showing how such belief functions can be ordered with regard to greater or lesser coherence.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Broome, J.: 1991, Weighing Goods, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M.: 1985, Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J.: 1992, Bayes or Bust? MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. (ed.): 1983, Testing Scientific Theories, vol. X of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, E.: 1990, ‘Bayesian Problems of Old Evidence’, in Savage, C. W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, vol. XIV of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 205–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, B.: 1979, Rational Belief Systems, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.: 1988, Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory, John Hopkins, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R.: 1993, Working without a Net: A Study of Egocentric Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber, D.: 1983, ‘Old Evidence and Logical Omniscience’, in Earman (1983), pp. 99–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A.: 1990, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Good, I. J.: 1983, Good Thinking, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I.: 1967, ‘Slightly More Realistic Personal Probability’, Philosophy of Science 34, 311–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, C., and P. Urbach: 1989, Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court, La Salle, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, S.: 1989, Natural Reasons, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R.: 1983a, The Logic of Decision, second edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R.: 1983b, ‘Bayesianism with a Human Face’, in Earman (1983), pp. 133–156. Reprinted in Jeffrey (1992), pp. 77–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R.: 1991, ‘Postscript (1991): New Evidence Revisited’, in Jeffrey (1992), pp. 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R.: 1992, Probability and the Art of Judgment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.): 1982, Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1979, ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, I.: 1986, Hard Choices; Decision Making Under Unresolved Conflict, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindley, D. V., A. Tversky, and R. V. Brown: 1979, ‘On the Reconciliation of Probability Assessments’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 142, Part 2, 146–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher, P.: 1993, Betting on Theories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R., and J. W. Ross: 1980, Human Inference, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga, A.: 1993, Warrant: The Current Debate, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G.: 1949, ‘Preliminary Remarks on a Logic of Plausible Inference’, Dialectica 3, 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G.: 1954, Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vols. 1, 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, F.: 1926, ‘Truth and Probability’, in Frank Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, D. H. Mellor (ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 52–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N., and R. Brandom: 1979, The Logic of Inconsistency: A Study in Non-Standard Possible-World Semantics and Ontology, Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard, M.: 1990, Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and How We Ascribe Them, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. D.: 1930, The Right and the Good, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.: 1967, ‘Difficulties in the Theory of Personal Probability’, Philosophy of Science 34, 305–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B.: 1984, Pragmatics and Empiricism, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B.: 1987, ‘Coherence’, in N. Rescher (ed.), Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1987), pp. 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1983, ‘Calibration: A Frequency Justification for Personal Probability’, in R. S. Cohen and L. Laudan (eds.), Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis (Dordrecht: D. Reidel), pp. 295–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1988, ‘The Problem of Old Evidence’, in Austin (ed.), Philosophical Analysis (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 153–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen, B.: 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zynda, L.: 1995a, ‘Old Evidence and New Theories’, Philosophical Studies 77, 67–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zynda, L.: 1995b, Probability and Human Rationality, Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Many people influenced the present version of this essay. Ban van Frassen, Richard Jeffrey, David Lewis, Mike Thau, and Alan Hájek provided extensive and invaluable written comments on the entire essay. Mark van Roojen provided helpful comments on Sections 3 and 4. Mike Than and John Barker provided essential aid when I was formulating the proofs in section 6. Finally, I am grateful for valuable discussion of the essay with Ned Hall, Fiona Cowie, Jim Woodward, David Hilbert, and Frank Arntzenius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zynda, L. Coherence as an ideal of rationality. Synthese 109, 175–216 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413767

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413767

Keywords

Navigation