Embracing Incoherence

In Nick Hughes (ed.), Epistemic Dilemmas. Oxford University Press. pp. 1-29 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Incoherence is usually regarded as a bad thing. Incoherence suggests irrationality, confusion, paradox. Incoherentism disagrees: incoherence is not always a bad thing, sometimes we ought to be incoherent. If correct, Incoherentism has important and controversial implications. It implies that rationality does not always require coherence. Dilemmism and Incoherentism both embrace conflict in epistemology. After identifying some important differences between these two ways of embracing conflict, I offer some reasons to prefer Incoherentism over Dilemmism. Namely, that Incoherentism allows us to deliberate about what we ought to believe using ordinary epistemology, and it does a better job of accommodating the positive features of incoherence.

Author's Profile

Claire Field
University of Stirling

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-15

Downloads
867 (#21,790)

6 months
195 (#14,204)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?