Coherence reasoning and reliability: a defense of the Shogenji measure
- 161 Downloads
A measure of coherence is said to be reliability conducive if and only if a higher degree of coherence (as measured) results in a higher likelihood that the witnesses are reliable. Recently, it has been proved that several coherence measures proposed in the literature are reliability conducive in a restricted scenario (Olsson and Schubert 2007, Synthese 157:297–308). My aim is to investigate which coherence measures turn out to be reliability conducive in the more general scenario where it is any finite number of witnesses that give equivalent reports. It is shown that only the so-called Shogenji measure is reliability conducive in this scenario. I take that to be an argument for the Shogenji measure being a fruitful explication of coherence.
KeywordsCoherence Reliability Measures of coherence probability
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BonJour L. (1985) The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, New York and OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Carnap R. (1951) Logical foundations of probability. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Horwich P. (1998) Wittgensteinian Bayesianism. In: Curd M., Cover J.A. (eds) Philosophy of science: The central issues. Norton, New York and London, pp 607–624Google Scholar
- Lehrer K. (1990) Theory of knowledge. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
- Levi I. (1962) Corroboration and rules of acceptance. Brititsh Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13: 307–313Google Scholar
- Lewis C. I. (1946) An analysis of knowledge and valuation. Open Court, LaSalleGoogle Scholar
- Olsson E. J. (2005) Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Pearl J. (2000) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Russell B. (1912) The problems of philosophy. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar