Coherentism: none of our beliefs are foundational, and the truth of a belief can only be confirmed by its coherence with other beliefs. Thus, knowledge arises from a network of interdependent and mutually reinforcing beliefs. — Noisy Calf
This sounds closer to redundancy theories in my mind. Although, there is significant overlap between coherentism and redundancy theories. Yes? — Shawn
See Susan Haack's
foundherentism. — 180 Proof
Foundationalism: some of our beliefs are foundational, that is, they are self-evidently true, and they do not require demonstration to be justified and known. According to strict foundationalism, everything we know is either a foundational belief or a conclusion derived from foundational beliefs.
Coherentism: none of our beliefs are foundational, and the truth of a belief can only be confirmed by its coherence with other beliefs. Thus, knowledge arises from a network of interdependent and mutually reinforcing beliefs. Whether a belief is justified or not depends on whether it agrees with one's other beliefs. — Noisy Calf
Coherentism: none of our beliefs are foundational, and the truth of a belief can only be confirmed by its coherence with other beliefs. Thus, knowledge arises from a network of interdependent and mutually reinforcing beliefs. Whether a belief is justified or not depends on whether it agrees with one's other beliefs. — Noisy Calf
So in conclusion, we form immediate, unreflective beliefs about reality based on foundational knowledge, and then, by reflecting on these beliefs, we work them into a coherent system that allows us to know them in a reflective and self-conscious way. So unreflective knowledge is justified according to foundationalism and reflective knowledge is justified according to coherentism. — Noisy Calf
Each of the nodes of the truss are connected to at least two other nodes. A load placed on any node is transmitted along the truss members to other nodes and throughout the rest of the truss. I see this as a metaphor for knowledge. I can't add a new node anywhere I want. The rest of the nodes are significantly constrained in their movement by the interconnected members of the truss. If I want to make any major changes in the network, especially something that isn't consistent with its current design, it will take a lot of effort throughout the network, not just in the location of interest. — T Clark
I think that reflection is extremely important, because many people don't really question assumptions. I am sure that many of the philosophers were extremely reflective. However, I have found more on the topic of reflection in books outside of philosophy, such as ones on critical thinking. Also, I am familiar with an author, Gillian Bolton, who looks at reflective writing as a practice. However, I think that you are correct to point to the importance of reflection on ideas, and I see this as an essential aspect of philosophy. — Jack Cummins
I think I can expand upon it to defend my point. In order for a structure to function, it needs to rest on solid ground (unless it's something like a satellite). Solid ground works as an analogy for foundational knowledge. — Noisy Calf
Like other sentient animals, we humans know what we perceive. If we feel hunger or hear a loud noise, we have immediate knowledge of these perceptions. This knowledge is foundational. I don't need to demonstrate that I hear a loud noise in order to know that I hear it. Even if the noise is a hallucination, I still know that I hear it. — Noisy Calf
My understanding of human nature is that, although we are born with capacities and tendencies, almost everything we know we learn. The first months of a child's life are spent creating a world with raw sensory data, their mind's and body's structure and function, and guidance from other people, primarily their mothers and families. To me, that puts the kibosh on foundationalism from the start. — T Clark
Foundationalism — Noisy Calf
Coherentism — Noisy Calf
On the other hand, if the principle is regarded as being empirically descriptive, then it must fallible, in which case it also cannot play a role in any epistemic foundation. — sime
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.