COHERENTISM

I. Dancy's Coherence Theory of Justification

1. Justification is symmetric

(Why is justification asymmetric for the Foundationalist?)

2. A set of beliefs is coherent to the extent that the members are mutually explanatory and consistent.

3. The full account: If a's belief set is more coherent with the belief that p as a member than without it or with any alternative, a is (or would be) justified in believing that p.

II. Dancy's Coherence Theory of Truth:

A proposition is true ó It is a member of a coherent set.

The plurality objection

Why not combine the Coherence Theory of Justification with the Correspondence Theory of Truth?

III. The Input Problem for Coherence Theories of Justification

The Input Problem for empirical coherentism: According to the coherentist, empirical justification is solely a product of relations of mutual support among beliefs. So for the coherentist, empirical justification does not require any connection to the way the world actually is. But there are many different coherent sets of propositions that are incompatible with each other. Coherentism provides no rational basis for preferring any of them over any of the others. But it is hard to see how empirical justification could be this disconnected from the real world. For empirical beliefs to be justified, it seems necessary that there be some appropriate process by which the world can affect those beliefs. This would be an additional constraint on empirical justification, in addition to any coherence considerations.

III. Dancy's Reply: Antecedent and subsequent security

Pure coherentism vs. weak coherentism

Genetic asymmetry vs. justificatory asymmetry

Justificatory symmetry: Equal antecedent security for all beliefs

What is Dancy's final response to the Input Problem?

Fumerton's Example of the Back Pain

IV. The Problem of the Paranoid Schizophrenic