Skip to main content

The Role of Coherence of Evidence in the Non-Dynamic Model of Confirmation

  • Chapter
  • 232 Accesses

Abstract

This paper examines the role of coherence of evidence in what I call the non-dynamic model of confirmation. It appears that other things being equal, a higher degree of coherence among pieces of evidence raises to a higher degree the probability of the proposition they support. I argue against this view on the basis of three related observations. First, we should be able to assess the impact of coherence on any hypothesis of interest the evidence supports. Second, the impact of coherence among the pieces of evidence can be different on different hypotheses of interest they support. Third, when we assess the impact of coherence on a hypothesis of interest, other conditions that should be held equal for a fair assessment include the degrees of individual support which the propositions directly supported by the respective pieces of evidence provide for the hypothesis. Once we take these points into consideration, the impression that coherence of evidence plays a positive role in confirmation dissipates. In some cases it can be shown that other things being equal, a higher degree of coherence among the pieces of evidence reduces the degree of confirmation for the hypothesis they support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Akiba, K.: 2000, ‘Shogenji’s Probabilistic Measure of Coherence Is Incoherent’, Analysis 60, 356–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BonJour, L.: 1985, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, L. and S. Hartmann: 2003a, ‘Solving the Riddle of Coherence’, Mind 112, 601–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, L. and S. Hartmann: 2003b, Bayesian Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, L. and E. J. Olsson: 2000, ‘Coherence, Reliability and Bayesian Networks’, Mind 109, 685–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitelson, B.: 2003, ‘A Probabilistic Theory of Coherence’, Analysis 63, 194–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. I.: 1946, An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, Open Court, LaSalle, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrvold, W.: 1996, ‘Bayesianism and Diverse Evidence: A Reply to Andrew Wayne’, Philosophy of Science 63, 661–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, E. J.: 2001, ‘Why Coherence Is Not Truth Conducive’, Analysis 61, 236–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, E. J.: 2002, ‘What is the Problem of Coherence and Truth?’, The Journal of Philosophy 99, 246–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shogenji, T.: 1999, ‘Is Coherence Truth Conducive?’, Analysis 59, 338–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogenji, T.: 2003, ‘A Condition for Transitivity in Probabilistic Support’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54, 613–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogenji, T.: 2005, ‘Justification by Coherence from Scratch’, Philosophical Studies 125, 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: 1992, Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P.: 2000, Coherence in Thought and Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shogenji, T. (2006). The Role of Coherence of Evidence in the Non-Dynamic Model of Confirmation. In: Gähde, U., Hartmann, S. (eds) Coherence, Truth and Testimony. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5547-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics