DOCSLIB.ORG

EPISTEMIC COHERENTISM and the ISOLATION OBJECTION Paul

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EPISTEMIC COHERENTISM and the ISOLATION OBJECTION Paul EPISTEMIC COHERENTISM AND THE ISOLATION OBJECTION Paul K. MOSER Loyola University of Chicago The isolation objection, as standardly formulated, claims that the coherence theory of empirical epistemic justification (or 'epistemic coherentism' for short) divorces empirical justification from the empirical world. In this form the isolation objection is obviously too rough to threaten any coherence theory. But in what follows I shall argue that there is aversion of this objection that does challenge epistemic coherentism. The basic point of this objection, as I shall explain, is that epistemic coherentism divorces empirical justification from empirically reliable belief. But before developing this point, we need to attend to so me preliminaries. I Let us begin by clarifying the basic idea of epistemic coherentism. The leading contemporary versions of coherentism are .holistic insofar as they define 'coherence' as a relation between a candidate belief and the set of all the beliefs a person antecedently holds. Holistic coherentism conflicts with any axiomatic conception of empirical justification depicting the fundamental relation between justified beliefs as one of linear dependence with derivative beliefs depending on foundational beliefs. Rather, it provides a network conception of justification depicting the fundamental relation be­ tween justified beliefs as one of mutual support. The following principle, then, will provide a useful schema for a coherence theory of empirical justification: 1 CT. A person S is justified in believing a proposition P if and only if P coheres with the beliefs bel on ging to a belief-system of kind K that 1. This schema is suggested by Keith Lehrer, Knowledge (Oxford: Claren­ don Press, 1974), p. 154. 84 does not require non-inferentially justified, foundational propositions for the justification of any proposition. In accepting this schema, the coherentist must meet two basic requirements. He must provide us with an account of the relation called 'coherence', and he must specify the kind of system with which a jusitified proposition must cohere. Coherence theorists gene rally agree that the kind of coherence sufficient for empirical jusitifcation is not merely logical consistency. In fact, so me coherentists, such as Brand Blanshard, construe coherence as a relation of necessary connection. On Blanshard's theory, a proposition P coheres with other propositions of a system K if and only if P logically entails and is logically entailed by every other proposition in K. 2 But it seems implausible to hold that this kind of coherence is necessary for empirical justification, since typically we assume that propositions about unrelated perceptual objects can be justified for a person even if they do not entail each other. Similarly, it seems im plausible to hold that such coherence is sufficient for empirical justification, mainly because of the following familiar problem. Taking any consistent system of contingent propositions marked by coherence in Blanshard's sense, one can form an equally coherent system simply by negating each proposition in the first system. But the new system will contradict everything the firstsystem states about the empirical world. Hence, if Blanshard's kind of logical coherence is sufficient for empirical justification, any con­ tingent proposition justified for a person will be such that its denial is similarly justified. Surely this problem, in conjunction with the preceding problem, should advise us against construing coherence as mutual logical entailment. Such problems have led many coherentists to connect coherence with explanation, thus producing explanatory coherence theories.3 2. See Blanshard, The Nature of Thought, 2 vols. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1939), 2:265-66. A useful discussion of Blanshard's theory is Nicholas Rescher's "Blanshard and the Coherence Theory of Truth", in The Philosophy of Brand Blanshard, ed. Paul Schilpp (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1980), pp. 574-88. 3. Variations on explanatory coherentism appear, for instance, in the writings of W.V. Quine, Wilfrid Sellars, and Gilbert Harman. See Quine and J.S. Ullian, The Web of Belief, 2d ed. (New York: Random House, 1978); Sellars, "Some Reflections on Language Games", in Science, Perception and .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Following the Argument Where It Leads
    Following The Argument Where It Leads Thomas Kelly Princeton University [email protected] Abstract: Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common sense or 'Moorean' responses to revisionary philosophical theorizing. 1. Introduction Bertrand Russell devoted the thirteenth chapter of his History of Western Philosophy to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He concluded his discussion with a rather unflattering assessment: There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times (1945: 463). The extent to which this is a fair assessment of Aquinas is controversial.1 My purpose in what follows, however, is not to defend Aquinas; nor is it to substantiate the charges that Russell brings against him.
    [Show full text]
  • Episteme IS FOUNDATIONAL a PRIORI JUSTIFICATION INDISPENSABLE?
    Episteme http://journals.cambridge.org/EPI Additional services for Episteme: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here IS FOUNDATIONAL A PRIORI JUSTIFICATION INDISPENSABLE? Ted Poston Episteme / Volume 10 / Issue 03 / September 2013, pp 317 - 331 DOI: 10.1017/epi.2013.25, Published online: 07 August 2013 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1742360013000257 How to cite this article: Ted Poston (2013). IS FOUNDATIONAL A PRIORI JUSTIFICATION INDISPENSABLE?. Episteme, 10, pp 317-331 doi:10.1017/epi.2013.25 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/EPI, IP address: 108.195.178.103 on 23 Aug 2013 Episteme, 10, 3 (2013) 317–331 © Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/epi.2013.25 is foundational a priori justification indispensable? ted poston1 [email protected] abstract Laurence BonJour’s (1985) coherence theory of empirical knowledge relies heavily on a traditional foundationalist theory of a priori knowledge. He argues that a foundationalist, rationalist theory of a priori justication is indispensable for a coherence theory. BonJour (1998) continues this theme, arguing that a traditional account of a priori justication is indispensable for the justication of putative a priori truths, the justication of any non-observational belief and the justication of reasoning itself. While BonJour’s indispensability arguments have received some critical discussion (Gendler 2001; Harman 2001; Beebe 2008), no one has inves- tigated the indispensability arguments from a coherentist perspective. This perspec- tive offers a fruitful take on BonJour’s arguments, because he does not appreciate the depth of the coherentist alternative to the traditional empiricist-rationalist debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering the Theoretical/Practical Divide: the Philosophy of Nishida Kitarō
    University of Mississippi eGrove Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2013 Reconsidering The Theoretical/Practical Divide: The Philosophy Of Nishida Kitarō Lockland Vance Tyler University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Tyler, Lockland Vance, "Reconsidering The Theoretical/Practical Divide: The Philosophy Of Nishida Kitarō" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 752. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/752 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECONSIDERING THE THEORETICAL/PRACTICAL DIVIDE: THE PHILOSOPHY OF NISHIDA KITARŌ A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Philosophy University of Mississippi by LOCKLAND V. TYLER APRIL 2013 Copyright Lockland V. Tyler 2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Over the years professional philosophy has undergone a number of significant changes. One of these changes corresponds to an increased emphasis on objectivity among philosophers. In light of new discoveries in logic and science, contemporary analytic philosophy seeks to establish the most objective methods and answers possible to advance philosophical progress in an unambiguous way. By doing so, we are able to more precisely analyze concepts, but the increased emphasis on precision has also been accompanied by some negative consequences. These consequences, unfortunately, are much larger and problematic than many may even realize. What we have eventually arrived in at in contemporary Anglo-American analytic philosophy is a complete repression of humanistic concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge*
    Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge* Paul Thagard†‡ What is the relation between coherence and truth? This paper rejects numerous answers to this question, including the following: truth is coherence; coherence is irrelevant to truth; coherence always leads to truth; coherence leads to probability, which leads to truth. I will argue that coherence of the right kind leads to at least approximate truth. The right kind is explanatory coherence, where explanation consists in describing mech- anisms. We can judge that a scientific theory is progressively approximating the truth if it is increasing its explanatory coherence in two key respects: broadening by explaining more phenomena and deepening by investigating layers of mechanisms. I sketch an explanation of why deepening is a good epistemic strategy and discuss the prospect of deepening knowledge in the social sciences and everyday life. 1. Introduction. The problem of the relation between coherence and truth is important for philosophy of science and for epistemology in general. Many epistemologists maintain that epistemic claims are justified, not by a priori or empirical foundations, but by assessing whether they are part of the most coherent account (see, e.g., Bonjour 1985; Harman 1986; Lehrer 1990). A major issue for coherentist epistemology concerns whether we are ever warranted in concluding that the most coherent account is true. In the philosophy of science, the problem of coherence and truth is part of the ongoing controversy about scientific realism, the view that science aims at and to some extent succeeds in achieving true theories. The history of science is replete with highly coherent theories that have turned out to be false, which may suggest that coherence with empirical evidence is a poor guide to truth.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rationalist Argument for Libertarian Free Will
    A rationalist argument for libertarian free will Stylianos Panagiotou PhD University of York Philosophy August 2020 Abstract In this thesis, I give an a priori argument in defense of libertarian free will. I conclude that given certain presuppositions, the ability to do otherwise is a necessary requirement for substantive rationality; the ability to think and act in light of reasons. ‘Transcendental’ arguments to the effect that determinism is inconsistent with rationality are predominantly forwarded in a Kantian manner. Their incorporation into the framework of critical philosophy renders the ontological status of their claims problematic; rather than being claims about how the world really is, they end up being claims about how the mind must conceive of it. To make their ontological status more secure, I provide a rationalist framework that turns them from claims about how the mind must view the world into claims about the ontology of rational agents. In the first chapter, I make some preliminary remarks about reason, reasons and rationality and argue that an agent’s access to alternative possibilities is a necessary condition for being under the scope of normative reasons. In the second chapter, I motivate rationalism about a priori justification. In the third chapter, I present the rationalist argument for libertarian free will and defend it against objections. Several objections rest on a compatibilist understanding of an agent’s abilities. To undercut them, I devote the fourth chapter, in which I give a new argument for incompatibilism between free will and determinism, which I call the situatedness argument for incompatibilism. If the presuppositions of the thesis are granted and the situatedness argument works, then we may be justified in thinking that to the extent that we are substantively rational, we are free in the libertarian sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
    Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature RICHARD RORTY Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey Copyright © 1979 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Includes index. 1. Philosophy. 2. Philosophy, Modern. 3. Mind and body. 4. Representation (Philosophy) 5. Analysis (Philosophy) 6. Civilization-Philosophy. I. Title. B53·R68 190 79- 84013 ISBN 0-691-07236-1 ISBN 0-691-02016-7 pbk. Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from The National Endowment for the Humanities This book has been composed in Linotype Baskerville Princeton University Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources Printed in the United States of America Second printing, with corrections, 1980 First Princeton Paperback printing, 1980 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 I I 10 TO M. V. R. When we think about the future of the world, we always have in mind its being at the place where it would be if it continued to move as we see it moving now. We do not realize that it moves not in a straight line, but in a curve, and that its direction constantly changes. Philosophy has made no progress? If somebody scratches where it itches, does that count as progress? If not, does that mean it wasn't an authentic scratch? Not an authentic itch? Couldn't this response to the stimulus go on for quite a long time until a remedy for itching is found? Wenn wir an die Zukunft der Welt denken, so meinen wir immer den Ort, wo sie sein wird, wenn sie so weiter Hiuft, wie wir sie jetzt laufen sehen, und denken nieht, da�s sie nieht gerade lauft, sondern in einer Kurve, und ihre Riehtung sieh konstant andert.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Kinds of Coherentism
    THREE KINDS OF COHERENTISM Jaap Hage* [email protected] Abstract This paper aims to show what makes coherentism attractive in comparison to its main competitor, foundationalism. It also aims to show that constraint satisfaction is not the most attractive way to give content to the notion of coherence. In order to achieve these purposes, the paper distinguishes between epistemic, constructive and integrated coherentism. Epistemic coherentism treats coherence as a test for knowledge about a world which exists independently (ontological realism). Constructive coherentism uses coherence as a standard to determine what the facts are in a particular domain. This is a form of ontological idealism. Usually, both epistemic and constructive coherentism apply the coherence test to only part of the positions (beliefs etc.) which a person accepts. The definition of and standards for coherence, just as usually logic and standards for belief revision are kept outside the process of making a position set coherent. Integrated coherentism differs by including everything in the coherence creating process. A set of positions is integratedly coherent if and only if it satisfies the standards included in the set of positions itself. The paper argues that integrated coherentism best fits with the ideas underlying coherentism and that it is incompatible with coherence as constraint satisfaction in a strict sense. Keywords: integrated coherence, epistemic coherence, constructive coherence, defeasible coherence, narrow coherence, negative coherence, foundationalism, constraint satisfaction, meta-belief, pseudo-realism, truth connection, reflective equilibrium, position, justification, truth. 1 INTRODUCTION Coherentism has its basis in epistemology (Bonjour 1985; Lehrer 1992 and 2000; Thagard and Verbeurgt 1998; Thagard 2000; Kvanvig 2011) and ramifications into ontology (Rescher 1973; Young 2008), but has also become popular in ethical theory (Rawls 1972; Daniels 2011) and in jurisprudence (MacCormick 1978 and 2005; Dworkin 1978 and 1986; Peczenik 2008; Amaya 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • A Further Reinterpretation of the Moral Philosophy of John Stuart Mill
    A FURTHER REINTERPRETATION OF THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF JOHN STUART MILL. by Derek Jo Banks M.A.9 University of Glasgow, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Philosophy 0 DEREK JOHN BANKS 1972 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY January 1972 Name : Derek J. Banks !iiitlc of '.thesis : li ir'urther deinterpretation of the Floral I'hilosophy of John ,Stuart Mill Examining Cornrni-ttee : Chairman: Kay Jennings """ Lionel Kenner Senior Supervisor P "-" Donald G. Brown Lxt ernal Axaminer &of essor of 'hilosophy University of British Columbia I ABSTRACT Those of Mill's critics who focus their attention on Utilitarianism assume that Mill must have held that certain ethical sentences, including one expressing the principle of utility, are properly describable as true. In this thesis I set out to demonstrate the spuriousness of this assumption. I begin by showing that in several important works - works which he thought much more highly of than he did Utilitarianism - Mill denied that the truth (or falsity) of any ethical sentences can ever be established. Next I produce evidence that his reason for this denial lies in his commitment to the view that ethical sentences are really disguised imperative sentences, and hence have no truth-value. Pinally, it is argued that there is nothing in Utilitarianism that is inconsistent with the meta-ethical position which we have found him to adopt in his other works related to ethics. In a short coneluding chapter I devote as much space as I deem permissible in a thesis of this type to show that reinterpretation of Mill's ethical theory on an imperative model renders it more plausible than it is generally taken to be, since all theories which allow truth-values to ethical sentences are open to knock-down objections.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Will and Determinism: Theory and Practice in Psychology
    Please note The text in this file has been automatically extracted and may contain minor errors. For the original version please consult the paper copy held in the Swinburne Library. - FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM: THEORY AND PRACTICE IN PSYCHOLOGY Keith Maxwell Purdie B. A., B. D., Grad. Dip. App. Psych. Submitted for the degree of ~octorof Philosophy November, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ! Table of contents '1 List of tables vii List of figures viii Abstract XI Declaration xi ! Acknowledgements xii , PART ONE 1. The importance of the issue 1.1 Conceptual issue - empirical discipline 1 1.2 Initial definitions of key terms Natural and Non Natural Determinism Metaphysical and Metl~odologicalDeterminism Hard Determinism Soft Determinism Near Determinism Non-Rigid Determinism "Superordinate" Determinism Freedom as a "Necessary Fiction" Freedom as an Assumption Active Self Determination Indeterminism Libertarianism Libertarianism and Determinism Causation The Four Causes of Aristotle 1.3 The significance of fieedom. Freedom and Determinism: Opposing views of Human Life Moral Responsibility Agency and Autonomy Novelty . Meaning Dignity Conclusion 1 -4 The position I intend to advocate Overall Position Specific Claims 2. Positions in the debate 2.1 Approaches to the issue 2.2 Criticisms of hard determinism 2.3 Limiting the scope of determinism to accommodate freedom Rene Descartes William James 2.4 Redefining freedom to accommodate determinism Soft determinism An evaluation of soft determinism 2.5 Redefining determinism to accommodate fi-eedom. Blanshard's proposal An evaluation of Blanshard's approach 2.6 Challenging the assumptions underlying the debate Reasons as causes Non-linear time Dialectical thinking 2.7 Conclusions 3.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COPYRIGHT BY
    MASTER'S THESIS M-687 GRIFFITHS, Leslie Morris SamueL THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE REFUTATIONS OF PROFESSOR AYER'S PRINCIPLE OF VERIFICATION. The American University, M. A ., 1964 Philosophy University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan COPYRIGHT BY LESLIE MORRIS SAMUEL GRIFFITHS 1964 . THE JUSTIFICATION OP THE REFUTATIONS OF PROFESSOR AYER'S PRINCIPLE OF VERIFICATION ■ ' Leslie M. sT Griffiths Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Signatures of Committee: Chai rman : /} Dean of the College Date : ^ f Date; / 'T / ^ 7 ~ ■ “'■/ ^ AMEm«vERsnv The American University 'AUG 24:1964 Washington, D. C. WflSHlHGIDH.DC 4- Soi'j THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE REFUTATIONS OF PROFESSOR AYER'S PRINCIPLE OF VERIFICATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION p. 1 A. The need for the study of the principle of Verification. B. The neglect of Professor Ayer's philosophy by the critics of positivism. C. Description of Chapters which attempt to rectify this alleged negligence. CHAPTER I -- The Status of Ayer's Principle of Verification............................... p. 5 Section i A. A description of the function of the principle. 1. The status of metaphysical statements. 2. The status of ethical statements. 3 . The status of theological statements. B. The difficulty of formulating a principle of verification. 1. Purpose -- to render philosophy a department of logic. 2. Mathematical and scientific statements acceptable. Section ii C. Professor Ayer's prepositional dichotomy (the a priori and the empirical). 1. The distinction between empirical and super-empirical statements. 2. The notion of 'literal' significance.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COHERENCE of EMPIRICISM 33 Experience: It Is Limited to Particular Objects in Close Spatio-Temporal Prox- Imity
    THE COHERENCE View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.ukOF EMPIRICISM brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers ALBERT CASULLO Abstract: Rationalists often argue that empiricism is incoherent and con- clude, on that basis, that some knowledge is a priori. I contend that such arguments against empiricism cannot be parlayed into an argument in support of the a priori since rationalism is open to the same arguments. I go on to offer an alternative strategy. The leading idea is that, instead of offering a priori arguments against empiricism, rationalists should marshal empirical support for their position. 1. Introduction The debate over a priori knowledge often proceeds in negative terms. For example, in the first half of the twentieth century, it was common to maintain that all a priori knowledge is analytic on the grounds that there is no plausible explanation of how we acquire synthetic a priori know- ledge. Whatever the merits of this argument against the synthetic a priori, many now recognize that it cannot be parlayed into an argument in support of the analytic a priori.1 For we have no better explanation of how we acquire such knowledge. In recent years empiricism has come under attack. Some argue that the view is incoherent and conclude, on that basis, that some knowledge is a priori.2 We need to recall here the lesson of history. Whatever the merits of such arguments against empiricism, they cannot be parlayed into an argument in support of the a priori unless the latter is not open to those arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of Explanatory Coherentism December 13, 2013
    Reason & Explanation: A defense of explanatory coherentism Ted L. Poston University of South Alabama December 13, 2013 ii Contents Preface vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 A brief history of coherentism . 2 1.2 Two traditional objections to coherentism . 7 1.2.1 The Input Objection . 7 1.2.2 Alternative Systems Objection . 9 1.3 Overview . 11 2 Epistemic Conservatism 17 2.1 The anti-conservative probability argument . 19 2.2 Conservative Justification & Warranted Assertion . 26 2.3 Conservatism & Autobiographical Epistemology . 28 2.4 The `Extra Boost' and Conversion objections . 32 2.4.1 The \Extra Boost" Objection . 32 2.4.2 Conversion objections . 33 2.5 Conservatism & the perspectival character of justification . 35 2.5.1 The argument from perspective . 36 2.5.2 Two challenges . 38 2.6 Conclusion . 40 3 Reasons without first philosophy 41 3.1 The Basic Reasons Dilemma . 42 3.1.1 The First Horn . 42 3.1.2 The Second Horn . 44 3.2 The argument against first philosophy . 45 3.2.1 The nature of basic reasons . 45 3.2.2 No First Philosophy . 48 3.3 Framework Reasons . 51 iii iv CONTENTS 3.4 Weak foundationalism & framework reasons . 56 3.5 Bergmann on foundationalism and epistemic circularity . 58 3.6 Conclusion . 62 4 Explanation & Justification 63 4.1 Explanation & its virtues . 64 4.1.1 Three arguments for primitiveness . 67 4.1.2 The virtues of explanation . 73 4.2 An explanationist theory of justification . 78 4.2.1 The goal . 78 4.2.2 The Ex-J account . 79 4.2.3 Ex-J & Mentalism .
    [Show full text]