Skip to main content

Did Reid Hold Coherentist Views?

  • Chapter
The Philosophy of Thomas Reid

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 42))

Abstract

In a recent paper, Keith Lehrer and John-Christian Smith show that Thomas Reid, while being mainly foundationalist and reliabilist in his conception of knowledge, also pays attention to the dimension of coherence within our system of beliefs.(1) They describe thus a hitherto not much discussed and very interesting feature of Reid’s philosophy. As they give simultaneously a fallibilist interpretation of the knowledge claims we may derive — according to Reid — from the exertion of our faculties, the consideration of coherence gains in importance: the less we derive completely certain knowledge directly from the exertion of our faculties, the more coherence among our beliefs could become relevant for the justification of knowledge claims. I shall not discuss the question of Reid’s fallibilism here, but restrict my discussion to the possible role of coherence among our beliefs in Reid’s philosophy and give some development to Lehrer and Smith’s argument.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Lehrer and Smith (1985, MS version p. 26). I wish to express my gratitude to the authors for providing me with the manuscript version of their article and for their very valuable commentaries on the present paper. I am also grateful to Timothy Oakley for very useful advice. This research has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lehrer and Smith (1985, MS version pp. 7 and 23).

    Google Scholar 

  3. I VI, xx (Works, p. 184).

    Google Scholar 

  4. I V, vii (Works, p. 127).

    Google Scholar 

  5. IP VI, iv (Works, p. 438).

    Google Scholar 

  6. IP VI, iv (Works, p. 439).

    Google Scholar 

  7. IP VI, iv (Works, p. 438). See also Schulthess (1983, pp. 88–90).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lehrer and Smith (1985, MS version p. 12).

    Google Scholar 

  9. IP VI, v (Works, p. 445).

    Google Scholar 

  10. IP VI, v (Works, p. 444).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cf. Lehrer (1974, pp. 189ff.).

    Google Scholar 

  12. IP VI, v (Works, p. 451).

    Google Scholar 

  13. A reflection of this nature became a leading thought in William Whewell’s philosophy of science: “A coincidence of untried facts with speculative assertions cannot be the work of chance, but implies some large portions of truth in the principles on which the reasoning is founded.” Whewell (1840, Vol. II, p. 229).

    Google Scholar 

  14. I VI, xxiv (Works, p. 198).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Lehrer (1983, p. 182).

    Google Scholar 

  16. IP VI, iv (Works, p. 441).

    Google Scholar 

  17. IP VI, vii (Works, p. 469).

    Google Scholar 

  18. IP VI, v (Works, p. 448).

    Google Scholar 

  19. IP VI, v (Works, p. 449).

    Google Scholar 

  20. I IV, ii (Works, pp. 117–9).

    Google Scholar 

  21. IP VI, v (Works, p. 446).

    Google Scholar 

  22. IP VI, v (Works, p. 451).

    Google Scholar 

  23. IP VI, v (Works, p. 450).

    Google Scholar 

  24. I VI, xxiv (Works, p. 199).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schulthess, D. (1989). Did Reid Hold Coherentist Views?. In: Dalgarno, M., Matthews, E. (eds) The Philosophy of Thomas Reid. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 42. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2338-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2338-6_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7552-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2338-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics