, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 607–621

Is coherence conducive to reliability?



A measure of coherence is said to be reliability conducive if and only if a higher degree of coherence (as measured) of a set of testimonies implies a higher probability that the witnesses are reliable. Recently, it has been proved that the Shogenji measure of coherence is reliability conducive in restricted scenarios (e.g., Olsson and Schubert, Synthese, 157:297–308, 2007). In this article, I investigate whether the Shogenji measure, or any other coherence measure, is reliability conducive in general. An impossibility theorem is proved to the effect that this is not the case. I conclude that coherence is not reliability conducive.


Coherence Reliability Bayesianism Probability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angere S. (2007) The defeasible nature of coherentist justification. Synthese 157: 321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, New York and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Douven I., Mejis W. (2007) On the alleged impossibility of coherence. Synthese 157: 347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Olsson E. J. (2005) Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Olsson E. J., Schubert S. (2007) Reliability conducive measures of coherence. Synthese 157: 297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pearl J. (2000) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Schubert, S. (2010a). Coherence reasoning and reliability: A defense of the Shogenji measure. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-010-9856-6
  8. Schubert, S. (2010b). Coherence and reliability: The case of overlapping testimonies. Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-010-9246-y
  9. Schupbach J. (2008) On the alleged impossibility of Bayesian coherentism. Philosophical Studies 141: 323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shogenji T. (1999) Is coherence truth conducive? Analysis 59: 338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations