{"id":{"repo_id":"rice","oai_identifier":"oai:repository.rice.edu:1911/13423"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/rice/oai:repository.rice.edu:1911/13423","repository":{"repo_id":"rice","name":"Rice University","base_url":"https://repository.rice.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The input objection: Bane of coherence theory","abstract":"A pure coherence theory of empirical justification claims that the justification of empirical beliefs is based solely on internal relations. This claim gives rise to the input objection, which states that pure coherentism allows empirical justification to be cut off from the world. Laurence BonJour and Michael Williams attempt to rebut the input objection. BonJour does so by means of cognitively spontaneous beliefs. The arguments for these beliefs are, however, fraught with too many difficulties for the notion of cognitively spontaneous beliefs to be tenable. Williams challenges the input objection by means of a dilemma, claiming that either the input objection is unintelligible, or epistemic beliefs provide the pure coherentist with a ready answer to the objection. The dilemma is unsuccessful since it fails to take into account all of the plausible conceptions of the world that are available. The input objection therefore remains a problem with which these coherentists must wrestle.","abstract_html":"A pure coherence theory of empirical justification claims that the justification of empirical beliefs is based solely on internal relations. This claim gives rise to the input objection, which states that pure coherentism allows empirical justification to be cut off from the world. Laurence BonJour and Michael Williams attempt to rebut the input objection. BonJour does so by means of cognitively spontaneous beliefs. The arguments for these beliefs are, however, fraught with too many difficulties for the notion of cognitively spontaneous beliefs to be tenable. Williams challenges the input objection by means of a dilemma, claiming that either the input objection is unintelligible, or epistemic beliefs provide the pure coherentist with a ready answer to the objection. The dilemma is unsuccessful since it fails to take into account all of the plausible conceptions of the world that are available. The input objection therefore remains a problem with which these coherentists must wrestle.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Cleveland, Wesley M."],"institution":"Rice University","degree_name":"Master of Arts","degree_level":"Masters","degree_discipline":"Humanities","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Grandy, Richard E."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1990,"date_issued":"1990","date_published":"1990","updated_at":"2026-07-24T04:10:41Z","subjects":["Philosophy"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise indicated. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/1911/13423","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Grandy, Richard E."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Cleveland, Wesley M."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2009-06-04T00:29:41Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2009-06-04T00:29:41Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1990"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Humanities"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Rice University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Philosophy"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise indicated. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/1911/13423"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["A pure coherence theory of empirical justification claims that the justification of empirical beliefs is based solely on internal relations. This claim gives rise to the input objection, which states that pure coherentism allows empirical justification to be cut off from the world. Laurence BonJour and Michael Williams attempt to rebut the input objection. BonJour does so by means of cognitively spontaneous beliefs. The arguments for these beliefs are, however, fraught with too many difficulties for the notion of cognitively spontaneous beliefs to be tenable. Williams challenges the input objection by means of a dilemma, claiming that either the input objection is unintelligible, or epistemic beliefs provide the pure coherentist with a ready answer to the objection. The dilemma is unsuccessful since it fails to take into account all of the plausible conceptions of the world that are available. The input objection therefore remains a problem with which these coherentists must wrestle."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The input objection: Bane of coherence theory"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Grandy, Richard E."],"dc:creator":["Cleveland, Wesley M."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2009-06-04T00:29:41Z"],"dc:date.available":["2009-06-04T00:29:41Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1990"],"dc:description.abstract":["A pure coherence theory of empirical justification claims that the justification of empirical beliefs is based solely on internal relations. This claim gives rise to the input objection, which states that pure coherentism allows empirical justification to be cut off from the world. Laurence BonJour and Michael Williams attempt to rebut the input objection. BonJour does so by means of cognitively spontaneous beliefs. The arguments for these beliefs are, however, fraught with too many difficulties for the notion of cognitively spontaneous beliefs to be tenable. Williams challenges the input objection by means of a dilemma, claiming that either the input objection is unintelligible, or epistemic beliefs provide the pure coherentist with a ready answer to the objection. The dilemma is unsuccessful since it fails to take into account all of the plausible conceptions of the world that are available. The input objection therefore remains a problem with which these coherentists must wrestle."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/1911/13423"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:rights":["Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise indicated. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder."],"dc:subject":["Philosophy"],"dc:title":["The input objection: Bane of coherence theory"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Humanities"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts"],"thesis:institution_name":["Rice University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T04:10:41Z"}