![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Philosophy of science. |
Care needs to be taken in using the word "model" in this article. The word implies that there is a something being modelled, and hence implicitly accepts a correspondence theory rather than a coherence theory of knowledge. That is, some Coherentists might not accept that there is an external reality that can be “modelled” and so it is improper to use the term in describing Coherentist accounts. Banno 23:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article could be clarified by treating the coherence theory of truth and the coherence theory of justification separately. Arguments should then be presented in an ordered fashion, each as its own subtopic, relative to the according theory. Any opinions? -- Adler F 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not giving my reasons sooner.
The distinction between the coherence theory of truth and the coherence theory of knowledge seems to be at the heart of this issue. I don't see sufficient merit in the distinction to justify having two separate articles - which is what has occurred. Put simply, what is the distinction in the content that justifies having two articles? Banno 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But I repeat: what is the distinction in the content that justifies having two articles? Banno 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing removed material here for easy reference. ... Kenosis 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The Confirmation Holism article links to this Coherentism page.
I think there ought to be a section distinguishing Coherentism from Holism, not a lot of the current literature on either topic really addresses the common mistake of treating the two theories as being more or less the same thing.
PS I am strongly against merging the Coherentism article with the Coherence Theory of Truth article. For this reason, I am also against (a) the discussion of the Coherence Theory of Truth that currently appears on this Coherentism page, and (b) the links from this Coherentism page to theories of truth, including the Coherence Theory of Truth (it suggests Coherentism - a theory of justification - is on the same continuum as a theory of truth, which is not the case. (Note that I wouldn't be against a 'warning' on the Coherentism page, similar to a disambiguation warning, to alert readers that they may have arrived at Coherentism when they were looking for the Coherence Theory of Truth.)
Paucolpitts2 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to add a very basic introduction for anyone who's just surfing around, together with some examples of the sorts of questions that arise in everyday life. I don't think any of it conflicts with the academic explanation and discussion that follow. Bonniedougall ( talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Inventing Temperature by Hasok Chang has a nice introductory description of coherentism; someone may find it worth chasing this reference up. — Edward Z. Yang( Talk) 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, it seems like it's just a mess of different concepts. It's a bit too technical for an encyclopedia entry and this talk of proof-theory doesn't really help.
Shouldn't it simply be a broad introduction followed by one or two concrete examples of what a coherentist theory might look like? I'm not that knowledgeable so I wouldn't feel comfortable taking the reins here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.238.180 ( talk) 02:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you give an example of Russell's Critic? Is he saying that a coherentist approach need a foundational approach to support its views? -- Josemazcorro ( talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems that they are properly independent philosophical topics, and hence should not be rolled into one article. More practically, running them together seems to unduly risk confusion on the part of readers who do not already have some background in epistemology. Oakenrabbit ( talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Large portions of sentences don't follow through with a reference... 103.171.118.53 ( talk) 13:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Philosophy of science. |
Care needs to be taken in using the word "model" in this article. The word implies that there is a something being modelled, and hence implicitly accepts a correspondence theory rather than a coherence theory of knowledge. That is, some Coherentists might not accept that there is an external reality that can be “modelled” and so it is improper to use the term in describing Coherentist accounts. Banno 23:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article could be clarified by treating the coherence theory of truth and the coherence theory of justification separately. Arguments should then be presented in an ordered fashion, each as its own subtopic, relative to the according theory. Any opinions? -- Adler F 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not giving my reasons sooner.
The distinction between the coherence theory of truth and the coherence theory of knowledge seems to be at the heart of this issue. I don't see sufficient merit in the distinction to justify having two separate articles - which is what has occurred. Put simply, what is the distinction in the content that justifies having two articles? Banno 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
But I repeat: what is the distinction in the content that justifies having two articles? Banno 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing removed material here for easy reference. ... Kenosis 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The Confirmation Holism article links to this Coherentism page.
I think there ought to be a section distinguishing Coherentism from Holism, not a lot of the current literature on either topic really addresses the common mistake of treating the two theories as being more or less the same thing.
PS I am strongly against merging the Coherentism article with the Coherence Theory of Truth article. For this reason, I am also against (a) the discussion of the Coherence Theory of Truth that currently appears on this Coherentism page, and (b) the links from this Coherentism page to theories of truth, including the Coherence Theory of Truth (it suggests Coherentism - a theory of justification - is on the same continuum as a theory of truth, which is not the case. (Note that I wouldn't be against a 'warning' on the Coherentism page, similar to a disambiguation warning, to alert readers that they may have arrived at Coherentism when they were looking for the Coherence Theory of Truth.)
Paucolpitts2 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to add a very basic introduction for anyone who's just surfing around, together with some examples of the sorts of questions that arise in everyday life. I don't think any of it conflicts with the academic explanation and discussion that follow. Bonniedougall ( talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Inventing Temperature by Hasok Chang has a nice introductory description of coherentism; someone may find it worth chasing this reference up. — Edward Z. Yang( Talk) 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, it seems like it's just a mess of different concepts. It's a bit too technical for an encyclopedia entry and this talk of proof-theory doesn't really help.
Shouldn't it simply be a broad introduction followed by one or two concrete examples of what a coherentist theory might look like? I'm not that knowledgeable so I wouldn't feel comfortable taking the reins here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.238.180 ( talk) 02:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Can you give an example of Russell's Critic? Is he saying that a coherentist approach need a foundational approach to support its views? -- Josemazcorro ( talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems that they are properly independent philosophical topics, and hence should not be rolled into one article. More practically, running them together seems to unduly risk confusion on the part of readers who do not already have some background in epistemology. Oakenrabbit ( talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Large portions of sentences don't follow through with a reference... 103.171.118.53 ( talk) 13:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)