Synthese

, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 305–319 | Cite as

Coherence reasoning and reliability: a defense of the Shogenji measure

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Coherence Reliability Measures of coherence probability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angere S. (2008) Coherence as a heuristic. Mind 117: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BonJour L. (1985) The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovens L., Olsson E. J. (2000) Coherentism, reliability and Bayesian networks. Mind 109: 686–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, New York and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap R. (1951) Logical foundations of probability. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Douven I., Mejis W. (2007) Measuring coherence. Synthese 156: 405–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finch H. A. (1960) Confirming power of observations metricized for decisions among hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 27: 293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitelson B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillies D. (1986) In defense of the popper-miller argument. Philosophy of Science 53: 110–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Jeffrey R. (1992) Probability and the art of judgment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehrer K. (1990) Theory of knowledge. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  13. Levi I. (1962) Corroboration and rules of acceptance. Brititsh Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13: 307–313Google Scholar
  14. Lewis C. I. (1946) An analysis of knowledge and valuation. Open Court, LaSalleGoogle Scholar
  15. Milne P. (1996) Log[p(h/eb)/p(h/b)] is the one true measure of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 63: 21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Olsson E. J. (2002) Corroborating testimony, probability and surprise. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olsson E. J. (2005) Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Olsson E. J., Schubert S. (2007) Reliability conducive measures of coherence. Synthese 157: 297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pearl J. (2000) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Popper K. (1954) Degree of confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5: 143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenkrantz R. (1994) Bayesian confirmation: Paradise regained. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell B. (1912) The problems of philosophy. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Schlesinger G. (1995) Measuring degrees of confirmation. Analysis 55: 208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shogenji T. (1999) Is coherence truth conducive?. Anaysis 59: 338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siebel M., Wolff W. (2008) Equivalent testimonies as a touchstone of coherence. Synthese 161: 167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations