Skip to main content
Log in

The Impossibility of Coherence

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is an emerging consensus in the literature on probabilistic coherence that such coherence cannot be truth conducive unless the information sources providing the cohering information are individually credible and collectively independent. Furthermore, coherence can at best be truth conducive in a ceteris paribus sense. Bovens and Hartmann have argued that there cannot be any measure of coherence that is truth conducive even in this very weak sense. In this paper, I give an alternative impossibility proof. I provide a relatively detailed comparison of the two results, which turn out to be logically unrelated, and argue that my result answers a question raised by Bovens and Hartmann’s study. Finally, I discuss the epistemological ramifications of these findings and try to make plausible that a shift to an explanatory framework such as Thagard’s is unlikely to turn the impossibility into a possibility.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • T. Bartelborth (1996) Begründungsstrategien: ein Weg durch die analytische Erkenntnistheorie Akademie Verlag Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Bonjour (1985) The Structure of Empirical Knowledge Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Bonjour (1999) ‘The Dialectics of Foundationalism and Coherentism’ J. Greco E. Sosa (Eds) The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology Blackwell Malden, Mass 117–142

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Bovens B. Fitelson S. Hartmann J. Snyder (2002) ArticleTitle‘Too Odd (not) to Be True: A Reply to Erik J. Olsson’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 539–563 Occurrence Handle10.1093/bjps/53.4.539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Bovens S. Hartmann (2003) Bayesian Epistemology Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Bovens E. J. Olsson (2000) ArticleTitle‘Coherentism, Reliability and Bayesian Networks’ Mind 109 685–719 Occurrence Handle10.1093/mind/109.436.685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. A. J. Coady (1992) Testimony: A Philosophical Study Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • L. J. Cohen (1977) The Probable and the Provable Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • C. B. Cross (1999) ArticleTitle‘Coherence and Truth Conducive Justification’ Analysis 59 186–193 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-8284.00166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. C. Ewing (1934) Idealism: A Critical Survey Methuen London

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, D. H.: 2002, ‘Coherence, Explanation and Bayesian Networks’, in Proceedings of the Irish Conference in AI and Cognitive Science, Lecture Notes in AI 2646, Springer, New York, pp. 256–259.

  • M. Huemer (1997) ArticleTitle‘Probability and Coherence Justification’ Southern Journal of Philosophy 35 463–472

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Jeffrey (1987) ArticleTitle‘Alias Smith and Jones: The Testimony of the Senses’ Erkenntnis 26 391–399 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00167725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Klein T. A. Warfield (1994) ArticleTitle‘What Price Coherence?’ Analysis 54 129–132

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Klein T. A. Warfield (1996) ArticleTitle‘No Help For the Coherentist’ Analysis 56 118–121 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.0003-2638.1996.00118.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Levi (1991) The Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Levi (2003) ArticleTitle‘Contracting from Epistemic Hell Is Routine’ Synthese 135 141–164 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1022915525935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. I. Lewis (1946) An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation Open Court LaSalle

    Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson (2001) ArticleTitle‘Why Coherence Is not Truth-Conducive’ Analysis 61 236–241 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-8284.00300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson (2002a) ArticleTitle‘What Is the Problem of Coherence and Truth?’ The Journal of Philosophy 99 246–272

    Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson (2002b) ArticleTitle‘Corroborating Testimony, Probability and Surprise’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 273–288

    Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson (2002c) ArticleTitle‘Corroborating Testimony and Ignorance: A Reply to Bovens, Fitelson, Hartmann and Snyder’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 565–572

    Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson (2003) ArticleTitle‘Avoiding Epistemic Hell: Levion Pragmatism and Inconsistency’ Synthese 135 119–140 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1022997026026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson (2005) Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • E. J. Olsson T. Shogenji (2004) ArticleTitle‘Can We Trust Our Memories? C. I. Lewis’s Coherence Argument’ Synthese 142 21–41

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Shogenji (1999) ArticleTitle‘Is Coherence Truth-Conducive?’ Analysis 59 338–345 Occurrence Handle10.1111/1467-8284.00191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Thagard (2000) Coherence in Thought and Action MIT Press Cambridge, Mass

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik J. Olsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olsson, E.J. The Impossibility of Coherence. Erkenntnis 63, 387–412 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-005-4007-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-005-4007-z

Keywords

Navigation