Coherentism and Truth

But why should we believe that coherence tracks truth? Well, when I consider my beliefs from the inside, I do not need to be shown that coherence tracks truth. The beliefs I am starting with are beliefs that I already take to be truth (that is what it means to say that these are my beliefs); and so the beliefs dialectically established from these starting-points I will also take to be true. Of course, I may eventually come to ask how it is that coherence tracks truth. But here I am asking for an explanation of a recognized fact, not for proof of something in question. (I am trying to move from mere [knowledge] to [understanding].) And I will no doubt have, on the basis of my current beliefs themselves, sufficient grounds for accepting such-and-such an explanation. For example, my beliefs tell me that I am being supplied with reasonably accurate perceptual organs, reasonably reliable belief-formation mechanisms, and an environment of other knowers interacting in a truth-tracking manner à la Mill's On Liberty. But I do not need to know any of this initially in order for my  beliefs to be justified.

No doubt the justification of one's beliefs will, however, be strengthened or weakened depending on one's ability or inability to come up with an explanation of why beliefs track truth. Indeed, the absence of such explanations where one expected to find them might well lead us, in good coherentist fashion, to revise our beliefs that our belief-forming mechanisms are reliable. Moreover, a belief-set that starts out justified may lose its justification if its possessor culpably fails to test it either for internal consistency or for consistency with new data.

Still, in the end, "ought" implies "can." Since we have no alternative to acting on the beliefs we have, we are justified in doing so, even if we cannot yet demonstrate these beliefs or explain why they are true; and so those beliefs are themselves justified, at least until a case can be made against them.

--Roderick T. Long, Reason and Value: Aristotle Versus Rand


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like. It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its a coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.... In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic.... Self-evidence, which [Bertrand] Russell talked about so much, can be dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.--What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   3.03, 3.031, 3.032, 5.473, 5.4731 (H/T: Roderick T. Long )      
Read more

Is He Having a Laugh?

According to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the government is God's appointed agent on earth, and each of us owes it allegiance and obedience. If that's so--and I for one don't believe either part of that statement--I'd like some believer to explain what God had in mind when he arranged things so that one of the two major-party clowns running for president will be elected in November. Is He having a laugh?
Read more

Freedom-Saturated Language

Determinists--deniers of free will, that is--apparently don't listen to themselves or read their own words. If they did they'd see that we human beings have no escape from freedom-saturated language. Think of words like should , deliberate , presume , intend , and so on ad infinitum. It is just impossible to speak or think as though determinism were true. And that says a lot. Our freedom is self-evident. You cannot demonstrate it because to demonstrate anything both  presupposes  and requires  freedom. You confirm freedom each time you set out to disconfirm it. "Today I plan to write out my proof that we have no freedom." Nonsense!  In contrast, we are perfectly capable of getting through a day without using God-saturated language.
Read more