Erkenntnis 63 (3):317-333 (2005)

Authors
Tomoji Shogenji
Rhode Island College
Abstract
This paper examines the role of coherence of evidence in what I call the non-dynamic model of confirmation. It appears that other things being equal, a higher degree of coherence among pieces of evidence raises to a higher degree the probability of the proposition they support. I argue against this view on the basis of three related observations. First, we should be able to assess the impact of coherence on any hypothesis of interest the evidence supports. Second, the impact of coherence among the pieces of evidence can be different on different hypotheses of interest they support. Third, when we assess the impact of coherence on a hypothesis of interest, other conditions that should be held equal for a fair assessment include the degrees of individual support which the propositions directly supported by the respective pieces of evidence provide for the hypothesis. Once we take these points into consideration, the impression that coherence of evidence plays a positive role in confirmation dissipates. In some cases it can be shown that other things being equal, a higher degree of coherence among the pieces of evidence reduces the degree of confirmation for the hypothesis they support.
Keywords Philosophy   Philosophy   Epistemology   Ethics   Logic   Ontology
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10670-005-4001-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,217
External links

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

Bayesian Epistemology.Luc Bovens & Stephan Hartmann - 2003 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conceptual Revolutions.Paul THAGARD - 1992 - Princeton University Press.
Coherence in Thought and Action (M. Amini).P. Thagard - 2000 - Philosophical Books 43 (2):136-140.
Is Coherence Truth Conducive?Tomoji Shogenji - 1999 - Analysis 59 (4):338–345.
What is the Problem of Coherence and Truth?Erik J. Olsson - 2002 - Journal of Philosophy 99 (5):246-272.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Towards a Grammar of Bayesian Coherentism.Michael Schippers - 2015 - Studia Logica 103 (5):955-984.
Coherentism, Truth, and Witness Agreement.William A. Roche - 2010 - Acta Analytica 25 (2):243-257.
Incoherence and Inconsistency.Michael Schippers - 2014 - Review of Symbolic Logic 7 (3):511-528.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Causation, Association, and Confirmation.Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines - 2010 - In Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao Gonzalez, Dennis Dieks & Thomas Uebe (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. Springer. pp. 37--51.
Plausibilistic Coherence.John R. Welch - 2014 - Synthese 191 (10):2239-2253.
Predictivism and Old Evidence: A Critical Look at Climate Model Tuning.Mathias Frisch - 2015 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (2):171-190.
A Mistake in Dynamic Coherence Arguments?Brian Skyrms - 1993 - Philosophy of Science 60 (2):320-328.
Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence.Amalia Amaya - 2011 - Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
72 ( #127,217 of 2,324,957 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #224,998 of 2,324,957 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes