Coherence and Probability: A Probabilistic Account of Coherence

  • William Roche
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 107)


I develop a probabilistic account of coherence, and argue that at least in certain respects it is preferable to (at least some of) the main extant probabilistic accounts of coherence: (i) Igor Douven and Wouter Meijs’s account, (ii) Branden Fitelson’s account, (iii) Erik Olsson’s account, and (iv) Tomoji Shogenji’s account. Further, I relate the account to an important, but little discussed, problem for standard varieties of coherentism, viz., the “Problem of Justified Inconsistent Beliefs.”


Belief System Adequate Account Perceptual Belief Great Coherence Probabilistic Account 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I wish to thank Michał Araszkiewicz, Kyle Kloster, Michael Roche, Eric Senseman, and the participants in the Artificial Intelligence, Coherence and Judicial Reasoning Workshop at ICAIL 2011 (the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law) for helpful comments on or discussion of ancestors of this paper. Further, I wish to thank Igor Douven, Kyle Kloster, and Eric Senseman for helpful correspondence on some of the issues discussed in the paper and related issues.


  1. Akiba, K. 2000. Shogenji’s probabilistic measure of coherence is incoherent. Analysis 60: 356–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angere, S. 2007. The defeasible nature of coherentist justification. Synthese 157: 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angere, S. 2008. Coherence as a heuristic. Mind 117: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BonJour, L. 1985. The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bovens, L., and S. Hartmann. 2003a. Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bovens, L., and S. Hartmann. 2003b. Solving the riddle of coherence. Mind 112: 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovens, L., and S. Hartmann. 2005. Why there cannot be a single probabilistic measure of coherence. Erkenntnis 63: 361–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovens, L., and S. Hartmann. 2006. An impossibility result for coherence rankings. Philosophical Studies 128: 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bovens, L., and E. Olsson. 2000. Coherentism, reliability and Bayesian networks. Mind 109: 685–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bovens, L., and E. Olsson. 2002. Believing more, risking less: On coherence, truth and non-trivial extensions. Erkenntnis 57: 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chalmers, D. 2011. Frege’s puzzle and the objects of credence. Mind 120: 587–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cling, A. 2008. The epistemic regress problem. Philosophical Studies 140: 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, C. 1999. Coherence and truth conducive justification. Analysis 59: 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crupi, V., K. Tentori, and M. Gonzalez. 2007. On Bayesian measures of evidential support: Theoretical and empirical issues. Philosophy of Science 74: 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Day, T., and H. Kincaid. 1994. Putting inference to the best explanation in its place. Synthese 98: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dietrich, F., and L. Moretti. 2005. On coherent sets and the transmission of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 72: 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douven, I. 1999. Inference to the best explanation made coherent. Philosophy of Science 66: S424–S435. Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douven, I. 2011. Abduction. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E. Zalta (published March 2011). Accessed 1 June 2012.
  19. Douven, I., and W. Meijs. 2007. Measuring coherence. Synthese 156: 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eells, E., and B. Fitelson. 2002. Symmetries and asymmetries in evidential support. Philosophical Studies 107: 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eliasmith, C., and P. Thagard. 1997. Waves, particles, and explanatory coherence. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitelson, B. 2003. A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis 63: 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fitelson, B. 2004. Two technical corrections to my coherence measure. Scholar
  24. Fitelson, B. 2008. A decision procedure for probability calculus with applications. Review of Symbolic Logic 1: 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foley, R. 1979. Justified inconsistent beliefs. American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 247–257.Google Scholar
  26. Garber, D. 1983. Old evidence and logical omniscience in Bayesian confirmation theory. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10: 99–131.Google Scholar
  27. Glass, D. 2005. Problems with priors in probabilistic measures of coherence. Erkenntnis 63: 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harman, G. 1970. Induction: A discussion of the relevance of the theory of knowledge to the theory of induction (with a digression to the effect that neither deductive logic nor the probability calculus has anything to do with inference). In Induction, acceptance, and rational belief, ed. M. Swain, 83–99. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huemer, M. 1997. Probability and coherence justification. Southern Journal of Philosophy 35: 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huemer, M. 2007. Weak Bayesian coherentism. Synthese 157: 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huemer, M. 2009a. Explanationist aid for the theory of inductive logic. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huemer, M. 2009b. When is parsimony a virtue? The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huemer, M. 2011. Does probability theory refute coherentism? Journal of Philosophy 108: 35–54.Google Scholar
  34. Iranzo, V. 2008. Bayesianism and inference to the best explanation. Theoria 61: 89–106.Google Scholar
  35. Kemeny, J., and P. Oppenheim. 1952. Degree of factual support. Philosophy of Science 19: 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein, P., and T. Warfield. 1994. What price coherence? Analysis 43: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klein, P., and T. Warfield. 1996. No help for the coherentist. Analysis 56: 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kvanvig, J. 2012. Coherentism and justified inconsistent beliefs: a solution. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehrer, K. 1999. Justification, coherence and knowledge. Erkenntnis 50: 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis, C.I. 1946. An analysis of knowledge & valuation. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  41. Lipton, P. 2001. Is explanation a guide to inference? A reply to Wesley C. Salmon. In Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications, ed. G. Hon and S. Rakover, 93–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Lombrozo, T. 2007. Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology 55: 232–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lycan, W. 1996. Plantinga and coherentisms. In Warrant in contemporary epistemology: Essays in honor of Plantinga’s theory of knowledge, ed. J. Kvanvig, 3–23. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  45. Lycan, W. 2012. Explanationist rebuttals (coherentism defended again). Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGrew, T. 2003. Confirmation, heuristics, and explanatory reasoning. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54: 553–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meijs, W. 2006. Coherence as generalized logical equivalence. Erkenntnis 64: 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meijs, W., and I. Douven. 2007. On the alleged impossibility of coherence. Synthese 157: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merricks, T. 1995. On behalf of the coherentist. Analysis 55: 306–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Defending abduction. Philosophy of Science 66: S436–S451. Proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Niiniluoto, I. 2004. Truth-seeking by abduction. In Induction and deduction in the sciences, ed. F. Stadler, 57–82. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Okasha, S. 2000. Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31: 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olsson, E. 1997. Coherence and the modularity of mind. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75: 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olsson, E. 1999. Cohering with. Erkenntnis 50: 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Olsson, E. 2001. Why coherence is not truth-conducive. Analysis 61: 236–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Olsson, E. 2002. What is the problem of coherence and truth? Journal of Philosophy 99: 246–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olsson, E. 2005a. Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Olsson, E. 2005b. The impossibility of coherence. Erkenntnis 63: 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olsson, E., and T. Shogenji. 2004. Can we trust our memories? C. I. Lewis’s coherence argument. Synthese 142: 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poston, T. 2012. Basic reasons and first philosophy: a coherentist view of reasons. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Psillos, S. 2004. Inference to the best explanation and Bayesianism. In Induction and deduction in the sciences, ed. F. Stadler, 83–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  62. Psillos, S. 2007. The fine structure of inference to the best explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 441–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roche, W. 2010. Coherentism, truth, and witness agreement. Acta Analytica 25: 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roche, W. 2011. Coherentism and inconsistency. Southwest Philosophy Review 27: 185–193.Google Scholar
  65. Roche, W. 2012a. Witness agreement and the truth-conduciveness of coherentist justification. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roche, W. 2012b. A reply to Cling’s ‘the epistemic regress problem’. Philosophical Studies 159: 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Salmon, W. 1970. Bayes’s theorem and the history of science. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5: 68–86.Google Scholar
  68. Salmon, W. 1990. Rationality and objectivity in science or Tom Kuhn meets Tom Bayes. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14: 175–204.Google Scholar
  69. Salmon, W. 2001a. Explanation and confirmation: A Bayesian critique of inference to the best explanation. In Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications, ed. G. Hon and S. Rakover, 121–136. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  70. Salmon, W. 2001b. Reflections of a bashful Bayesian: A reply to Lipton. In Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications, ed. G. Hon and S. Rakover, 61–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  71. Schubert, S. 2012. Coherence reasoning and reliability: A defense of the Shogenji measure. Synthese 187: 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schubert, S., and E. Olsson. 2012. On the coherence of higher-order beliefs. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 112–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schupbach, J. 2008. On the alleged impossibility of Bayesian coherentism. Philosophical Studies 141: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schupbach, J. 2011. New hope for Shogenji’s coherence measure. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62: 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Senseman, E. 2010. The problem of justified inconsistent beliefs: A case for coherentism. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  76. Shogenji, T. 1999. Is coherence truth conducive? Analysis 59: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shogenji, T. 2001. Reply to Akiba on the probabilistic measure of coherence. Analysis 61: 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shogenji, T. 2005. Justification by coherence from scratch. Philosophical Studies 125: 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shogenji, T. 2007. Why does coherence appear truth-conducive? Synthese 157: 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shogenji, T. (Forthcoming). Coherence of the contents and the transmission of probabilistic support. Synthese.Google Scholar
  81. Siebel, M. 2004. On Fitelson’s measure of coherence. Analysis 64: 189–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Siebel, M. 2005. Against probabilistic measures of coherence. Erkenntnis 63: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Siebel, M. 2011. Why explanation and thus coherence cannot be reduced to probability. Analysis 71: 264–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Siebel, M., and W. Wolff. 2008. Equivalent testimonies as a touchstone of coherence measures. Synthese 161: 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sober, E. 2002. Bayesianism—Its scope and limits. In Bayes’s theorem, ed. R. Swinburne, 21–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Swinburne, R. 1973. An introduction to confirmation theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  87. Thagard, P. 1989a. Explanatory coherence. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 435–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Thagard, P. 1989b. Author’s response. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 490–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Thagard, P. 1992. Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Thagard, P. 2000. Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Thagard, P. 2004. Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thagard, P. 2012. Coherence: the price is right. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thagard, P., and G. Nowak. 1988. The explanatory coherence of continental drift. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, 118–126.Google Scholar
  94. Thagard, P., and K. Verbeurgt. 1998. Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 22: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tregear, M. 2004. Utilising explanatory factors in induction? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. van Cleve, J. 2005. Why coherence is not enough: A defense of moderate foundationalism. In Contemporary debates in epistemology, ed. M. Steup and E. Sosa, 168–180. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  97. van Cleve, J. 2011. Can coherence generate warrant ex nihilo? Probability and the logic of concurring witnesses. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82: 337–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. van Fraassen, B. 1989. Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Weisberg, J. 2009. Locating IBE in the Bayesian framework. Synthese 167: 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wheeler, G. 2009. Focused correlation and confirmation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wheeler, G. 2012. Explaining the limits of Olsson’s impossibility result. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations