Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:34:04.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Coherent Sets and the Transmission of Confirmation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Franz Dietrich  and
Luca Moretti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we identify a new and mathematically well-defined sense in which the coherence of a set of hypotheses can be truth-conducive. Our focus is not, as usual, on the probability, but rather on the confirmation of a coherent set and its members. We show that if evidence confirms a hypothesis, confirmation is ‘transmitted’ to any hypotheses that are sufficiently coherent with the former hypothesis, according to some appropriate probabilistic coherence measure such as Olsson's or Fitelson's measure. Our findings have implications for scientific methodology, as they provide a formal rationale for the method of indirect confirmation and the method of confirming theories by confirming their parts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 3 , July 2005 , pp. 403 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

For helpful comments, we wish to thank Claus Beisbart, Ludwig Fahrbach, Branden Fitelson, Stephan Hartmann, Franz Huber, Erik Olsson, Tomoji Shogenji, and the referees of this journal. For supporting this research, we are also grateful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Program for the Investment in the Future (ZIP) of the German Government.

References

Akiba, Ken (2000), “Shogenji’s Probabilistic Measure of Coherence Is Incoherent”, Shogenji’s Probabilistic Measure of Coherence Is Incoherent 60:356–359.Google Scholar
BonJour, Lawrence (1985), The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bovens, Luc, Fitelson, Branden, Hartmann, Stephan, and Snyder, Josh (2002), “Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson”, Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson 53:539–563.Google Scholar
Bovens, Luc, and Hartmann, Stephan (2002), “Bayesian Networks and the Problem of Unreliable Instruments”, Bayesian Networks and the Problem of Unreliable Instruments 69:29–73.Google Scholar
Bovens, Luc, and Hartmann, Stephan (2003), “Solving the Riddle of Coherence”, Solving the Riddle of Coherence 112:601–633.Google Scholar
Bovens, Luc, and Hartmann, Stephan (2004), Bayesian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, Charles (1999), “Coherence and Truth Conducive Justification”, Coherence and Truth Conducive Justification 59:186–193.Google Scholar
Eells, Ellery, and Fitelson, Branden (2000), “Measuring Confirmation and Evidence”, Measuring Confirmation and Evidence 97:663–672.Google Scholar
Fitelson, Branden (2001), “A Bayesian Account of Independent Evidence with Application”, A Bayesian Account of Independent Evidence with Application 68 (Proceedings): S123–S140.Google Scholar
Fitelson, Branden (2003), “A Probabilistic Theory of Coherence”, A Probabilistic Theory of Coherence 63:194–199.Google Scholar
Fitelson, Branden (2004), “Two Technical Corrections to My Coherence Measure”, paper presented at the Bayesian Epistemology Conference, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Hoefer, Carl, and Rosenberg, Alexander (1994), “Empirical Equivalence, Underdetermination, and Systems of the World”, Empirical Equivalence, Underdetermination, and Systems of the World 61:592–607.Google Scholar
Kemeny, John, and Oppenheim, Paul (1952), “Degrees of Factual Support”, Degrees of Factual Support 19:307–324.Google Scholar
Klein, Peter, and Warfield, Ted (1994), “What Price Coherence?”, What Price Coherence? 54:129–132.Google Scholar
Klein, Peter, and Warfield, Ted (1996), “No Help for the Coherentist”, No Help for the Coherentist 56:118–121.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry, and Leplin, Jarret (1991), “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination”, Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination 88:449–472.Google Scholar
Lewis, Clarence Irving (1946), An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Merricks, Trenton (1995), “On Behalf of the Coherentist”, On Behalf of the Coherentist 55:306–309.Google Scholar
Okasha, Samir (1997), “Laudan and Leplin on Empirical Equivalence”, Laudan and Leplin on Empirical Equivalence 48:251–256.Google Scholar
Olsson, Erik (2001), “Why Coherence Is Not Truth Conducive”, Why Coherence Is Not Truth Conducive 61:236–241.Google Scholar
Olsson, Erik (2002), “What Is the Problem of Coherence and Truth?”, What Is the Problem of Coherence and Truth? 94:246–272.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea (2001), Causality—Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shogenji, Tomojir (1999), “Is Coherence Truth-Conducive?”, Is Coherence Truth-Conducive? 59:338–345.Google Scholar
Shogenji, Tomojir (2001), “Reply to Akiba on the Probabilistic Measure of Coherence”, Reply to Akiba on the Probabilistic Measure of Coherence 61:147–150.Google Scholar
Shogenji, Tomojir (2003), “A Condition for Transitivity in Probabilistic Support”, A Condition for Transitivity in Probabilistic Support 54:613–616.Google Scholar