Coherencecentrism

Coherencecentrism is a philosophical stance that prioritizes the overall coherence of a system of beliefs, theories, or values as the central criterion for evaluation. Proponents contend that a proposition is justified to the extent that it contributes to a coherent whole, defined by logical consistency, explanatory integration, and alignment with established domains of knowledge. Unlike foundationalism or strict empiricism, coherencecentrism emphasizes the mutual support among beliefs and the avoidance of internal contradictions, rather than grounding justification in direct sensory evidence or a single foundational premise.

Key principles include internal consistency, cross-domain coherence (consistency with related theories and data), explanatory coherence (integration into broader explanations), and normativity of coherence (coherence imposes normative standards on belief revision). In practice, adherents assess coherence through formal models (e.g., logical consistency, Bayesian coherence), narrative cohesion, and compatibility with institutional or value frameworks. Revisions are allowed to improve coherence; proposals may be discarded if they introduce fragmentation.

Applications span epistemology, scientific theory appraisal, policy analysis, ethics, and information design. In science, coherencecentrism supports theory evaluation by considering coherence with established theories and empirical adequacy, while cautioning against overfitting to a fashionable paradigm. In policy and ethics, it guides decisions toward solutions that integrate with broader goals and principles.

Criticism notes include potential endorsement of incorrect but coherent systems, susceptibility to groupthink, and the risk of conflating coherence with truth. Critics argue that correspondence with reality or empirical adequacy should remain essential. Proponents respond that coherence is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for justification and can be combined with other criteria.