Coherence reasoning and reliability: a defense of the Shogenji measure

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Angere S. (2008) Coherence as a heuristic. Mind 117: 1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. BonJour L. (1985) The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bovens L., Olsson E. J. (2000) Coherentism, reliability and Bayesian networks. Mind 109: 686–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003) Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carnap R. (1951) Logical foundations of probability. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Douven I., Mejis W. (2007) Measuring coherence. Synthese 156: 405–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Finch H. A. (1960) Confirming power of observations metricized for decisions among hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 27: 293–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fitelson B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gillies D. (1986) In defense of the popper-miller argument. Philosophy of Science 53: 110–113

    Article  Google 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 607–624

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jeffrey R. (1992) Probability and the art of judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lehrer K. (1990) Theory of knowledge. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  13. Levi I. (1962) Corroboration and rules of acceptance. Brititsh Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13: 307–313

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis C. I. (1946) An analysis of knowledge and valuation. Open Court, LaSalle

    Google Scholar 

  15. Milne P. (1996) Log[p(h/eb)/p(h/b)] is the one true measure of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 63: 21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Olsson E. J. (2002) Corroborating testimony, probability and surprise. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Olsson E. J. (2005) Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  18. Olsson E. J., Schubert S. (2007) Reliability conducive measures of coherence. Synthese 157: 297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pearl J. (2000) Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Popper K. (1954) Degree of confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5: 143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenkrantz R. (1994) Bayesian confirmation: Paradise regained. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 467–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Russell B. (1912) The problems of philosophy. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schlesinger G. (1995) Measuring degrees of confirmation. Analysis 55: 208–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shogenji T. (1999) Is coherence truth conducive?. Anaysis 59: 338–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Siebel M., Wolff W. (2008) Equivalent testimonies as a touchstone of coherence. Synthese 161: 167–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Schubert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schubert, S. Coherence reasoning and reliability: a defense of the Shogenji measure. Synthese 187, 305–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9856-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Coherence
  • Reliability
  • Measures of coherence
  • probability