Talk:Coherentism

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I don't necessarily agree that a model needs to model anything. To be more precise, let me use an analogy to hobby models of Star Wars spaceships - a model does, indeed, always model something, but in doing so there is no necessary implication or even inference that that something has any other existence except as that which is modelled. Take scientific models for example. I think (I certainly hope!) one would find that only the very naive would assert that scientific models model "reality" or some "external world". I suspect one would find plenty of people who would refer to scientific theories as models without asserting or even believing that these models represent anything at all (except "that which is modelled" - the value of the model comes from what might be called an empirical reward mechanism - the "truth" of the model is very much contextualist in this instance - the scientific community "agrees" on the model). This, I think, is the great strength of Coherentism, and I simply wanted to say that, for one, I think the word "model" is, though perhaps not ideal, certainly justified. 220.233.221.9 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Model

message: 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)
replies: text: Oppose proposed merge.  This article has the capability of holding the topics of truth and justification together and handing off to either link (coherence theory of truth or theory of justification) as necessary in the future, according to how the content develops.  .....Kenosis 15:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth vs. justification

message: Placing removed material here for easy reference. ... Kenosis 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *To coherentism, the question is not whether or not there are really trees, birds, or spoons. The question is whether, assuming that the environment coheres, we can say that the people in the environment "know" anything or not. That is, the coherentist is talking about a different concept of "knows" ("Can the knower use the knowledge to functionally operate in the coherent environment,") than the non-coherentist ("Can the knower justify their knowledge matches reality?") The problem is collision and claim to the word "knows." 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed material

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holism and Coherentism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inventing Temperature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The introduction is a trainwreck 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on Coherentism criticism from Russell 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unmerge coherence theories of truth and coherence theories of justification