Is coherentism about justification plausible?
When it comes to the acquisition of a true belief leading to knowledge, it is thought that these beliefs should be justified. Coherentism is a form of internal, non-linear justification which holds the idea that for a belief to be justified in any way it must cohere with a current system of beliefs. BonJour wrote that 'what justifies beliefs is the way they fit together' , in essence, for beliefs to be justified they must metaphorically form a lattice like structure, where they each support each other, creating a non-linear structure of justification. Coherentism is mostly considered as an internal form of justification as this process of reflection on our current beliefs to accommodate new ones is an internal, mental process, as opposed to those external theories of justification such as foundationalism which rely on empirical and perceptual data forming core beliefs together being the source of justification. To clarify the idea of coherentism, three common components have been described by Noah Lemos as ‘often cited’ by coherentists, these being; ‘logical consistency’, ‘explanatory connections’, and ‘inconsistency with norms about belief formation’, the former two which will be developed subsequently.
In this essay I will …show more content…
BonJour uses the term ‘inferential support’ whereby if beliefs in a system have deductible relations they will necessarily have coherency, and an increase in the level of these relations would be reflected by the increase in level of coherency. Explanatory coherence could involve, as Lehrer describes, belief being explained by the system of beliefs, being the source of explanation itself or being both, the latter of which would be a form of strongest
When it comes to the acquisition of a true belief leading to knowledge, it is thought that these beliefs should be justified. Coherentism is a form of internal, non-linear justification which holds the idea that for a belief to be justified in any way it must cohere with a current system of beliefs. BonJour wrote that 'what justifies beliefs is the way they fit together' , in essence, for beliefs to be justified they must metaphorically form a lattice like structure, where they each support each other, creating a non-linear structure of justification. Coherentism is mostly considered as an internal form of justification as this process of reflection on our current beliefs to accommodate new ones is an internal, mental process, as opposed to those external theories of justification such as foundationalism which rely on empirical and perceptual data forming core beliefs together being the source of justification. To clarify the idea of coherentism, three common components have been described by Noah Lemos as ‘often cited’ by coherentists, these being; ‘logical consistency’, ‘explanatory connections’, and ‘inconsistency with norms about belief formation’, the former two which will be developed subsequently.
In this essay I will …show more content…
BonJour uses the term ‘inferential support’ whereby if beliefs in a system have deductible relations they will necessarily have coherency, and an increase in the level of these relations would be reflected by the increase in level of coherency. Explanatory coherence could involve, as Lehrer describes, belief being explained by the system of beliefs, being the source of explanation itself or being both, the latter of which would be a form of strongest