Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis examines incoherence in attitudes, suggesting implications for understanding truth and logic.
The requirements of structural rationality prohibit incoherence, but paradigmatic examples of incoherence are very diverse. Beyond an intuitive sense that incoherent attitudes do not fit together in the right way, it is difficult to characterize precisely what, if anything, unifies the paradigmatic examples. This paper offers a new analysis of incoherence based on the idea that attitudes are incoherent when they are unintelligible given the conceptual background. I argue that this analysis offers a major theoretical advantage over alternatives: it allows us to make progress in debates about foundational issues, such as the nature of truth, logic, and belief.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Claire Field (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: