Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:45:00.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ACCOUNTS TO COHERENCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 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 evaluates four different qualitative (probabilistic) accounts to coherence with a focus on structural properties (symmetries, asymmetries, and transitivity). It is shown that while coherence is not transitive on any of these accounts, there are screening-off conditions that render coherence transitive. In a second step, an array of quantitative (probabilistic) accounts to coherence is considered. The upshot is that extant measures differ considerably with respect to a number of symmetry constraints.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 579 - 598
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

Atkinson, D., & Peijnenburg, J. (2013). Transitivity and partial screening off. Theoria, 79, 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
BonJour, L. (1999). The dialectic of foundationalism and coherentism. In Greco, J., & Sosa, E. editors. The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 117–142.Google Scholar
Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability (Second ed.), Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Crupi, T., 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. (2011). Further results on the intransitivity of evidential support. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I., & Meijs, W. (2007). Measuring coherence. Synthese, 156, 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or Bust? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eells, E., & Fitelson, B. (2002). Symmetries and asymmetries in evidential support. Philosophical Studies, 107, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. (1999). Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. (2003). A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis, 63, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, D.H. (2002). Coherence, explanation, and Bayesian networks. InO'Neill, M. et al. . editors. Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1968). Corroboration, explanation, evolving probabilities, simplicity, and a sharpened razor. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 19, 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific Reasoning. The Bayesian Approach (Third ed.), Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
Klein, P., & Warfield, T. (1994). What price coherence? Analysis, 94, 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, T.A.F. (2000). From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. I. (1946). An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Meijs, W. (2006). Coherence as generalized logical equivalence. Erkenntnis, 64, 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijs, W., & Douven, I. (2006). On the alleged impossibility of coherence. Synthese, 157, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mericks, T. (1995). On behalf of the coherentist. Analysis, 55, 306–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, H. (1988). The Logic of Induction. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Clarenden.Google 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. (2012a). A weaker condition for transitivity in probabilistic support. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2, 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, W. (2012b). Transitivity and intransitivity in evidential support: Some further results. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, W. (2013). Coherence and probability. A probabilistic account of coherence. In Araszkiewicz, M., & Savelka, J. editors. Coherence: Insights from Philosophy, Jurisprudence and Artificial Intelligence. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–91.Google Scholar
Roche, W., & Shogenji, T. (2014). Confirmation, transitivity, and Moore: the screening-off approach. Philosophical Studies, 168, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schippers, M., & Siebel, M. (2012). Reassessing probabilistic measures of coherence. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Schubert, S. (2011). Coherence and reliability: The case of overlapping testimonies. Erkenntnis, 74, 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, S. (2012a). Coherence reasoning and reliability: A defense of the Shogenji measure. Synthese, 187, 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, S. (2012b). Is coherence conducive to reliability? Synthese, 187, 607–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schupbach, J.N. (2008). On the alleged impossibility of Bayesian coherentism. Philosophical Studies, 41, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle 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. (2003). A condition for transitivity in probabilistic support. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 613–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogenji, T. (2013). Coherence of the contents and the transmission of probabilistic support. Synthese, 190, 2525–2545.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