Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 16, pp 3821–3845 | Cite as

Probabilistic measures of coherence: from adequacy constraints towards pluralism

Article

Abstract

The debate on probabilistic measures of coherence flourishes for about 15 years now. Initiated by papers that have been published around the turn of the millennium, many different proposals have since then been put forward. This contribution is partly devoted to a reassessment of extant coherence measures. Focusing on a small number of reasonable adequacy constraints I show that (i) there can be no coherence measure that satisfies all constraints, and that (ii) subsets of these adequacy constraints motivate two different classes of coherence measures. These classes do not coincide with the common distinction between coherence as mutual support and coherence as relative set-theoretic overlap. Finally, I put forward arguments to the effect that for each such class of coherence measures there is an outstanding measure that outperforms all other extant proposals. One of these measures has recently been put forward in the literature, while the other one is based on a novel probabilistic measure of confirmation.

Keywords

Probabilistic measures of coherence Confirmation measures Probabilistic support 

References

  1. Akiba, K. (2000). Shogenji’s probabilistic measure of coherence is incoherent. Analysis, 60, 356–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2005). Coherence and the role of specificity: A response to Meijs and Douven. Mind, 114, 365–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovens, L., & Olsson, E. J. (2000). Coherentism, reliability and Bayesian networks. Mind, 109, 685–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnap, R. (1962). Logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, D. (1999). Measuring confirmation. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 437–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crupi, V., Tentori, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2007). On Bayesian measures of evidential support: Theoretical and empirical issues. Philosophy of Science, 74, 229–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crupi, V., & Tentori, K. (2013). Confirmation as partial entailment: A representation theorem in inductive logic. Journal of Applied Logic, 11, 364–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crupi, V., & Tentori, K. (2014). Erratum to “Confirmation as partial entailment” [Journal of Applied Logic 11 (2013) 364–372]. Journal of Applied Logic, 12, 230–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douven, I., & Meijs, W. (2007). Measuring coherence. Synthese, 156, 405–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finch, H. A. (1960). Confirming power of observations metricized for decisions among hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 27, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitelson, B. (2003). A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis, 63, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitelson, B. (2004). Two technical corrections to my coherence measure. Retrieved from http://www.fitelson.org/coherence2.pdf.
  15. Fitelson, B. (2008). A decision procedure for probability calculus with applications. Review of Symbolic Logic, 1, 111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillies, D. (1986). In defense of the Popper–Miller argument. Philosophy of Science, 53, 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glass, D. H. (2002). Coherence, explanation, and Bayesian networks. In M. ONeill, et al. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and cognitive science (pp. 177–182). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glass, D. H. (2005). Problems with priors in probabilistic measures of coherence. Erkenntnis, 63, 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Good, I. J. (1984). The best explicatum for weight of evidence. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 19, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckerman, D. (1988). An axiomatic framework for belief updates. In L. Kanal & J. Lemmer (Eds.), Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 11–22). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horwich, P. (1982). Probability and evidence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Iranzo, V., & Martínez de Lejarza, I. (2013). On ratio measures of confirmation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 44, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeffrey, R. (1992). Probability and the art of judgment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joyce, J. (1999). The foundations of causal decision theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joyce, J. (2008). Bayes’ theorem. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/bayes-theorem/.
  26. Keynes, J. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Kemeny, J., & Oppenheim, P. (1952). Degrees of factual support. Philosophy of Science, 19, 307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koscholke, J. (2013). Last measure standing. Evaluating test cases for probabilistic coherence measures. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  29. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, I. C. (1946). An analysis of knowledge and valuation. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  31. Meijs, W. (2005). Probabilistic measures of coherence (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rotterdam, 2005).Google Scholar
  32. Meijs, W. (2006). Coherence as generalized logical equivalence. Erkenntnis, 64, 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milne, P. (1996). \(\log [p(h|eb) /p(h|b)]\) is the one true measure of confirmation. Philosophy of Science, 63, 21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moretti, L., & Akiba, K. (2007). Probabilistic measures of coherence and the problem of belief individuation. Synthese, 154, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mortimer, H. (1988). The logic of induction. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Oxford: Clarenden.Google Scholar
  37. Olsson, E. J. (2002). What is the problem of coherence and truth? The Journal of Philosophy, 99, 246–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olsson, E. J. (2005). Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roche, W. (2013). Coherence and probability. A probabilistic account of coherence. In M. Araszkiewicz & J. Savelka (Eds.), Coherence: Insights from philosophy, jurisprudence and artificial intelligence (pp. 59–91). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Roche, W., & Schippers, M. (2013). Coherence, probability, and explanation. Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-013-9566-9.
  41. Rosenkrantz, R. (1994). Bayesian confirmation: Paradise regained. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 467–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schippers, M., & Siebel, M. (2012). Reassessing probabilistic measures of coherence. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  43. Schippers, M. (2014a). On the impossibility of measuring coherence. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  44. Schippers, M. (2014b). Inconsistency and incoherence. The Review of Symbolic Logic. doi:10.1017/S1755020314000203.
  45. Schippers, M. (2014c). Coherence, striking agreement, and reliability. On a putative vindication of the Shogenji measure. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0488-0.
  46. Schippers, M., & Siebel, M. (2014). Inconsistent testimonies as a touchstone for coherence measures. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  47. Schlesinger, G. (1995). Measuring degrees of confirmation. Analysis, 55, 208–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schubert, S. (2012). Coherence reasoning and reliability: A defense of the Shogenji measure. Synthese, 187, 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schupbach, J. N. (2011). New hope for Shogenji’s coherence measure. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 125–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shogenji, T. (1999). Is coherence truth conducive? Analysis, 59, 338–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siebel, M. (2004). On Fitelson’s measure of coherence. Analysis, 64, 189–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siebel, M. (2005). Against probabilistic measures of coherence. Erkenntnis, 63, 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siebel, M. (2011). Why explanation and thus coherence cannot be reduced to probability. Analysis, 71, 264–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siebel, M., & Wolff, W. (2008). Equivalent testimonies as a touchstone of coherence measures. Synthese, 161, 167–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zalabardo, J. (2009). An argument for the likelihood-ratio measure of confirmation. Analysis, 69, 630–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations