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