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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
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.
Lehrer and Smith (1985, MS version pp. 7 and 23).
I VI, xx (Works, p. 184).
I V, vii (Works, p. 127).
IP VI, iv (Works, p. 438).
IP VI, iv (Works, p. 439).
IP VI, iv (Works, p. 438). See also Schulthess (1983, pp. 88–90).
Lehrer and Smith (1985, MS version p. 12).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 445).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 444).
Cf. Lehrer (1974, pp. 189ff.).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 451).
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).
I VI, xxiv (Works, p. 198).
See Lehrer (1983, p. 182).
IP VI, iv (Works, p. 441).
IP VI, vii (Works, p. 469).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 448).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 449).
I IV, ii (Works, pp. 117–9).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 446).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 451).
IP VI, v (Works, p. 450).
I VI, xxiv (Works, p. 199).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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