Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:07:17.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INCOHERENCE AND INCONSISTENCY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

MICHAEL SCHIPPERS
MICHAEL SCHIPPERS*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Oldenburg
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper scrutinizes the relationship between inconsistency and incoherence with a special focus on probabilistic measures of coherence. As is shown, while the majority of extant coherence measures face problems regarding the assessment of inconsistent sets of propositions, it is possible to adapt the measures in order to improve their performance. Furthermore, different intuitions regarding the degree of incoherence of inconsistent sets of propositions are surveyed and assessed with respect to extant measures. In this context, a refined approach to measuring coherence is introduced. As is argued, by means of this approach one can account for the diverging coherence intuitions regarding inconsistent sets independently of the discussion on the adequacy of different probabilistic explications of coherence. The last part of the paper is devoted to the question of whether there is a covariation between degrees of inconsistency and degrees of incoherence in the sense that the higher the degree of inconsistency of a set of propositions, the higher its degree of incoherence. Focusing on two straightforward measures of the degree of inconsistency, this latter question is answered in the negative.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 511 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2014 

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.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akiba, K. (2000) Shogenji’s probabilistic measure of coherence is incoherent, Analysis, 60: 356–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, L. (1985) The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, Mass. and London, England: Harvard University Press, pp. 87–110.Google Scholar
Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003a) Bayesian Epistemology, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003b) Solving the riddle of coherence, Mind, 112: 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brössel, P. (2014) Assessing theories: The coherentist approach, Erkenntnis, 79: 593–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962). Logical foundations of probability, (2nd. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1999) Measuring confirmation, Journal of Philosophy, 96: 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, V., Tentori, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2007) On Bayesian measures of evidential support: Theoretical and empirical issues, Philosophy of Science, 74: 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I., & Meijs, W. (2007) Measuring coherence, Synthese, 156: 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. (2003) A probabilistic theory of coherence, Analysis, 63: 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. (2004) Two technical corrections to my coherence measure. Available from: http://www.fitelson.org/coherence2.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2014.Google Scholar
Glass, D.H. (2002) Coherence, explanation, and Bayesian networks, in O’Neill, M. et al. ., editors. Artificial intelligence and cognitive science, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, D.H. (2005) Problems with priors in probabilistic measures of coherence, Erkenntnis, 63: 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, A., & Konieczny, S. (2005) Approaches to measuring inconsistent information, in Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., & Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3300 , Berlin: Springer, pp. 191–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, K. (2002). Measuring inconsistency. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31: 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J., & Oppenheim, P. (1952) Degrees of factual support, Philosophy of Science, 19: 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. (1921) A treatise on probability, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Meijs, W. (2006) Coherence as generalized logical equivalence, Erkenntnis, 64: 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, L., & Akiba, K. (2007) Probabilistic measures of coherence and the problem of belief individuation, Synthese, 154: 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E.J. (2002) What is the problem of coherence and truth? The Journal of Philosophy, 99: 246–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E. J. (2005). Against coherence: Truth, probability and justification. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E. J., & Schubert, S. (2007). Reliability conducive measures of coherence, Synthese, 157, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, W. (2013) Coherence and probability. A probabilistic account of coherence, in Araszkiewicz, M, & Šavelka, J. editors. Coherence: Insights from philosophy, jurisprudence and artificial intelligence, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–91.Google Scholar
Schippers, M. (2014) On the impossibility of measuring coherence. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Schippers, M., & Siebel, M. (2014) Inconsistent testimonies as a touchstone for coherence measures. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Schupbach, J.N. (2011) New hope for Shogenji’s coherence measure. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62: 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogenji, T. (1999) Is coherence truth conducive?, Analysis, 59: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogenji, T. (2005) The role of coherence of evidence in the non-dynamic model of confirmation. Erkenntnis, 63 : 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebel, M. (2004) On Fitelson’s measure of coherence, Analysis, 64: 189–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebel, M. (2005) Against probabilistic measures of coherence, Erkenntnis, 63: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebel, M., & Wolff, W. (2008) Equivalent testimonies as a touchstone of coherence measures, Synthese, 161: 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar