Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Handout Bonjour PDF

    Uploaded by

    dart_2000
    This document summarizes Pierre BonJour's view of coherentism as presented in his work "The Coherence Theory of Empirical Justification". It discusses three key aspects: [1] BonJour rejects foundationalism and argues that beliefs are justified based on their relations of mutual support within a holistic system of beliefs; [2] BonJour defines the four stages by which an individual belief is justified according to coherentism; [3] The document outlines three major objections to coherentism and BonJour's responses, focusing on the need for cognitive spontaneity and correspondence with reality for a coherent system to qualify as knowledge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Handout Bonjour PDF

    Uploaded by

    dart_2000
    104 views2 pages
    This document summarizes Pierre BonJour's view of coherentism as presented in his work "The Coherence Theory of Empirical Justification". It discusses three key aspects: [1] BonJour rejects foundationalism and argues that beliefs are justified based on their relations of mutual support within a holistic system of beliefs; [2] BonJour defines the four stages by which an individual belief is justified according to coherentism; [3] The document outlines three major objections to coherentism and BonJour's responses, focusing on the need for cognitive spontaneity and correspondence with reality for a coherent system to qualify as knowledge.

    Original Title

    Handout-Bonjour.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes Pierre BonJour's view of coherentism as presented in his work "The Coherence Theory of Empirical Justification". It discusses three key aspects: [1] BonJour rejects foundationalism and argues that beliefs are justified based on their relations of mutual support within a holistic system of beliefs; [2] BonJour defines the four stages by which an individual belief is justified according to coherentism; [3] The document outlines three major objections to coherentism and BonJour's responses, focusing on the need for cognitive spontaneity and correspondence with reality for a coherent system to qualify as knowledge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    104 views2 pages

    Handout Bonjour PDF

    Uploaded by

    dart_2000
    This document summarizes Pierre BonJour's view of coherentism as presented in his work "The Coherence Theory of Empirical Justification". It discusses three key aspects: [1] BonJour rejects foundationalism and argues that beliefs are justified based on their relations of mutual support within a holistic system of beliefs; [2] BonJour defines the four stages by which an individual belief is justified according to coherentism; [3] The document outlines three major objections to coherentism and BonJour's responses, focusing on the need for cognitive spontaneity and correspondence with reality for a coherent system to qualify as knowledge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Philosophy 350

    Prof. Clare Batty




    BonJour, The Coherence Theory of Empirical Justification


    1.
    The Regress Argument: The Coherentist Response

    Remember the Regress Argument. In response, the coherentist claims: Reject premise 4! Beliefs are
    justified from withinfrom the relations of mutual support (logical, probabilistic, explanatory) that they
    bear to other beliefs.

    2.
    Two Conceptions of Coherence

    Circular coherence: Belief B
    1
    is justified on virtue of belief B
    2
    , which in turn gets it support from B
    3
    B
    n-1
    ,
    which is justified by B
    n
    , which finally is justified by B
    1
    .
    Circular coherentismlike foundationalismpresupposes a linear conception of
    justification.
    Holisitic coherence: Relations of justification do not involve a linear or symmetrical order of dependence;
    all of the beliefs in a system mutually support one another and none are epistemically
    prior to any other.
    This is BonJours view.
    Conditions on coherence:
    1. Logical consistency This is a purely negative condition; it states that ones system of beliefs must
    lack conflict.
    2. Positive explanatory connections Ones system of beliefs must be involve inferential and
    explanatory connections between beliefs, e.g., induction, deduction.

    According to BonJour, how is an individual belief justified?
    There are four stages:
    i. the inferability of that particular belief from other particular beliefs;
    ii. the coherence of the overall system of beliefs;
    iii. the justification of the overall system of beliefs;
    iv. the justification of the particular belief in question, by virtue of its membership in the system.
    Each of these steps depends on the step before it. According to BonJour, overlooking steps (ii) and (iii)
    have led to the linear model of justification.
    Step (iii) is important. According to BonJour, it is not enough that a belief is a member of a coherent
    system. A person must also be able to recognize that the belief stands in this relationship to other beliefs.
    If a person does not have access to this, then s/he has no reason to think that the belief is likely to be true.
    So, being in justified in believing that p involves having a further justified belief that p is likely to be true.
    (This latter belief involves believing that my belief that p is a member of my system of beliefs and that that
    system as a whole if justifiedi.e., coherent.)
    But what justifies these further meta-beliefs? According to BonJour, they are not justified in the traditional
    internalist or externalist sense. Rather, I cannot help but hold them to be true. Such a belief is a basic and
    unavoidable feature of cognitive practice.

    3.
    Three Objections

    (a) The input objection:
    According to coherentism, a system of beliefs is justified given the relations its beliefs hold to each other.
    Given this, we seem to have lost any relation to the world; according to coherentism, it doesnt matter
    what the world is like! If a system of beliefs represents the world accurately, then this is a mere
    coincidence. But we have agreed (earlier in the term) that accidentally true beliefs do not qualify as
    knowledge. So, coherentism cannot account for empirical knowledge.
    Response: We must distinguish between that which causes a belief and that which justifies it.
    Cognitively spontaneous beliefs: arise without being inferred from any other beliefs (e.g.,
    perceptual beliefs).
    The world has an effect on ones belief system by giving rise to cognitively spontaneous beliefs.
    Still, these beliefs are justified in virtue of their coherence with the entire system of ones beliefs.
    BonJour thinks that hid response to the input objection provides the resources with which to
    deal with two other objections.

    (b) The alternative coherent system objection:
    There may be two (or more!) mutually incompatible coherent systems that are equally coherent.
    Coherentism does not have the resources with which to make a principled choice between these systems
    even if we, prima facie, one of these systems provides a more accurate representation of the worlds.
    Response: This may happen at a time. But, in the long run, with the continuation of cognitively
    spontaneous beliefs, one system is bound to be more coherent than the other.
    Is this response good enough?

    (c) The problem of truth:
    Coherence may be necessary for justification; but it is not sufficient. It does not allow us a means of
    distinguishing truth from deluded, but coherent, theories or systems of beliefs (theories just are systems of
    beliefs). That is, it does not give us an account of why coherently justified beliefs are more likely to be true
    than beliefs that are not justified in this way.
    Response: There are at least two ways to connect coherence with truth.
    (i) Accept the coherence theory of truthi.e., the view that a belief is true if and only if coheres
    with a set of beliefs.
    But BonJour rejects this option.
    (ii) Accept the correspondence theory of truth and argue that a correspondence with reality
    provides the most plausible explanation of the fact that the overall belief system remains
    coherent while the agent continually accepts cognitively spontaneous beliefs. A system of
    beliefs that remains coherent over time is more likely to correspond to an independent
    realist.
    This is what BonJour argues.
    Is this good enough? What about a world in which a demon continuously causes you to
    have cognitively spontaneous beliefs, and that these contribute to a coherent system of
    beliefs?

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy