What question did this study set out to answer?

This research addresses the difficulty in defining incoherence and proposes a new framework for understanding it.

February 8, 2026Open Access

Is Incoherence Always Incoherent?

Key Points

This research addresses the difficulty in defining incoherence and proposes a new framework for understanding it.
Introduced the concept of structural rationality in relation to incoherence.
Analyzed diverse examples of incoherent attitudes to explore their commonality.
Critically compared the proposed analysis with alternative theories of incoherence.
Identified incoherence as a function of intelligibility relative to a conceptual background.
Demonstrated that the new analysis aids in understanding foundational issues in truth and belief.
Showed that alternative definitions of incoherence may lack consistency and clarity.

Abstract

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.

AI से पूछें

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Claire Field (Tue,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698828770fc35cd7a8847ef3 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-284747

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

AI से पूछें

Bookmark

View Full Paper