Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Coherentist justification—where beliefs mutually support each other—is a legitimate epistemic standard, not merely scientific confirmation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Coherent belief systems can be systematically false: a alternate universe with different physics could have perfectly coherent but incorrect beliefs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Coherence alone cannot distinguish reliable belief-formation from shared delusion; two people's coherent systems can contradict without coherence explaining which is true.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Perceptual experience provides independent rational constraints that coherence theories struggle to accommodate without external justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Foundationalism requires basic beliefs needing no justification, but all beliefs can be rationally questioned, making coherence more fundamental.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Scientific theories themselves form coherent networks where individual claims gain justification through mutual support, not isolation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Personal knowledge domains like history and ethics lack empirical foundations yet seem rationally justified through internal consistency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.