How do Coherentists deal with The Infinite Regress Argument? They reject it...duh.
Coherentist theory is that every justified belief is justified by its relation to other beliefs as explained in Feldman's Epistemology. The whole thing about evidential chains and circular reasoning in The Infinite Regress Argument Argument is disregarded because coherentists maintain:
1. Only beliefs can justify other beliefs. Nothing other than a belief can contribute to justification.
2. Every justified belief depends in part on other beliefs for justification. Justified basic beliefs do not exist.
Coherentists view beliefs like a puzzle. A belief is justified when it fits in with other beliefs. Of course there are objections. The first being The Alternative Systems Objection. Their argument is one can make any belief cohere with his belief system simply by adjusting the system. This objection is pretty lame. Coherentists are not by definition unreasonable people. A single coherentist will not believe at once "Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United States." and "Thomas Jefferson was not the third president of the United States." Additionally, one must ask why someone would arbitrarily alter their belief system just for the inclusion of a new belief into their belief puzzle?
The second argument is known as the Isolation Argument which highlights a whole in Coherentist Theory as it fails to account for experience. If Martha Stewart and I share the same belief system, and Martha's belief that she is baking cookies on television coheres with her system of beliefs, than my belief that I am baking cookies on television is justified...sadly I am not baking cookies on television. A more tangible example would be two people who have the same belief system and life experiences up to this point are told they will see a yellow bus drive past them. One indeed has a yellow bus drive past, but the other has an orange bus drive past. However the one who saw the orange bus has the support of her other beliefs, ie being told she would see a yellow one, so she thinks she actually did see a yellow bus.
Coherentists are plagued with so many problems, they have not formulated a formal coherentist theory, nor can they thoroughly explain what coherence is. Additionally, coherentists take too many variables into account when they sort through beliefs to distinguish them as justified or unjustified. However, much coherentist ideology makes sense. People typically do not add beliefs into their belief system unless they fit in with other beliefs, for example, one would not say they believed in God and is an atheist at the same time.
OK, good efficient presentation of Coherentism. [Familiarity]
ReplyDeleteGood discussion of the Alternative Systems objection - you're right that they wouldn't include those two beliefs at the same time. The problem, here, is that this is the ONLY restriction on beliefs. As long as my 'new' belief that I want to adopt doesn't conflict ("plays nice") with my other beliefs, it's true. But... then I can ask your question: why would someone "arbitrarily alter their belief system just for the inclusion of a new belief into their belief puzzle?" If all you have is the coherence theory of truth to rule in/out new beliefs, then you are absolutely right: beliefs get pretty arbitrary, don't they? THAT is the problem here: with that single standard, arbitrary beliefs can 'get in', and pretty soon, you can have systems of belief that are really strange, but OK to a Coherentist. So... does "reasonable" mean just & only "doesn't believe contradictory things"?
You get this with the other objection, though: "Isolation" is another objection that touches on the same problem. We usually think that at least some experience should provide a foundation for knowledge - that's kind of a 'given' from the Standard View. But the Isolation objection says, "Coherentism can ignore that." I didn't quite get the Martha example, but the bus one seems a bit better. I'm not convinced, though... can't the orange-bus person say, "but I have past experiences of yellow, so screw your one little bit of info about that bus being yellow - it was orange!"? (Try to respond to that - re-read Feldman's bit, see if this example is a good one or if you can explain it a bit better.)
Lastly: OK summary of the Coherence view and its prospects (though it's a little too summary-y of Feldman...) Can you compare/contrast Coherence with some rival views, to establish Competence?