Authors
Luis Rosa
University of Cologne
Abstract
Why should we avoid incoherence? An influential view tells us that incoherent combinations of attitudes are such that it is impossible for all of those attitudes to be simultaneously vindicated by the evidence. But it is not clear whether this view successfully explains what is wrong with certain akratic doxastic states. In this paper I flesh out an alternative response to that question, one according to which the problem with incoherent combinations of attitudes is that it is impossible for all of those attitudes to be simultaneously knowledgeable. This alternative response explains what is wrong with akratic combinations of attitudes using commonly accepted epistemological theses. The paper still shows how this proposal is able to explain the badness of incoherent combinations involving the absence of attitudes, suspended judgment and credence. These explanations deploy the notions of knowledge and being in a position to know, instead of the notion of responding properly to the evidence. Finally, I suggest that this picture can be generalized to the realm of practical rationality as well.
Keywords Coherence  Rational requirements  Knowability
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/pq/pqab076
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Accuracy and the Laws of Credence.Richard Pettigrew - 2016 - Oxford University Press UK.
Probabilistic Knowledge.Sarah Moss - 2018 - Oxford University Press.
Constructing the World.David J. Chalmers - 2012 - Oxford University Press.
The Importance of Being Rational.Errol Lord - 2018 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

View all 45 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

How Does Coherence Matter?Niko Kolodny - 2007 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1pt3):229 - 263.
Not Every Truth Can Be Known (at Least, Not All at Once).Greg Restall - 2009 - In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press. pp. 339--354.
The Conflict of Evidence and Coherence.Alex Worsnip - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 96 (1):3-44.
The Real Myth of Coherence.Wooram Lee - 2022 - Erkenntnis 87 (3):1211-1230.
What is (In)Coherence?Alex Worsnip - 2018 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 13:184-206.
Knowability and the Capacity to Know.Author unknown - manuscript
The Knowability Paradox and Unsuccessful Updates.Arkadiusz Wójcik - 2020 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 62 (1):53-71.
Truth and the Enigma of Knowability.Bernhard Weiss - 2007 - Dialectica 61 (4):521–537.
Truth and the Enigma of Knowability.Bernhard Weiss - 2007 - Dialectica 61 (4):521-537.
New Essays on the Knowability Paradox.Joe Salerno (ed.) - 2008 - Oxford, England and New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
The Independence of (in)Coherence.Wooram Lee - 2021 - Synthese 199 (3-4):6563-6584.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-12-15

Total views
177 ( #67,147 of 2,517,845 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
87 ( #8,499 of 2,517,845 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes