Epistemology & Coherence

When one is discussing or considering knowledge, what essentially is being discussed or considered is the measure of information that directly relates to a conclusion (or truth).  Epistemology is essential to all forms of philosophical discussions and considerations.  While knowledge may never enjoy the distinction that wisdom commands, it still is a vital component within the world of philosophical progression of reasoning and the human mind.

Once during a lecture a speaker (whom I will leave unnamed) discussed the vitality of a worldview.  More importantly the speaker was discussing to the college audience why simply having a worldview is not enough.  For, in order to justify and sustain a worldview, any worldview for that matter, it must be coherent.  Then the speaker gave a definition of what a worldview was, as well as defined coherence, in doing so establishing his credibility from the theoretical aspect of his philosophical deduction. 

Then suddenly with no forewarning a woman shot up out of her seat, and belted "what do you mean my world view have to be coherent?  Who are you to say that my worldview has to be a certain way?"  The speaker slightly startled responded to the questioner with grace, and stated he was simply quoting Daniel Bell (I believe).  The woman, now frustrated ,continued and in doing so cut the speaker off several times until the speaker knew that she would not stop until her own self defeating philosophy was uncoiled before her.  The speaker finally after several minutes of trying to respond, decided to ask a single question.  "Ma'am I just have one question for you.  Are you rejecting the notion of a coherent worldview?"  "Yes I am" replied the woman, "OK ma'am my question to you is in my reply to your question would you like a coherent answer or an incoherent answer."

The audience burst with laughter.  The woman sat down and listened to the remaining of the lecture.  That night she was saved.

Now while the defined term of Coherence in this instance may slightly be different from this example, the theme is present.  Even if two opposing opinions are coherent, it at least gives a common ground for an argument from both positions to begin.  The notion that we must be justified in order to understand coherence is false.  Coherence is the stronger position because it demands three vital components that may not be left unattended.

Logical Consistency

Empirical Adequacy

Experiential Relevance

Coherence at its very core respects the counter-perspective and in doing so formulates a bases by which we may agree and disagree, or agree to disagree.  Some may consider this a foundation.

Foundationialism I may not argue against, as it has it place and perspective, however it does not welcome a counter-perspective to even qualify itself. 

LWM

"The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy"

Steven B. Cowan & James Spiegel