contact@onbelief.orgIs coherence a powerful test of ideas?
It would seem that the presence of inconsistency and incoherence of a belief is not a reason for dismissing the whole. For example, in the absence of a unified field theory linking electromagnetism the strong and weak nuclear forces with gravity, the description of force fields and perhaps the nature of space itself cannot not be totally coherent. That is not a reason to dismiss the electromagnetic equations of James Clerk Maxwell as valueless. The concepts of gravity and electromagnetism have independent value in themselves and have independent supporting evidence. Coherence is nevertheless a fundamental goal of observationally based disciplines.
Incoherence of ideas, as Dawkins implies, should raise our suspicions that a better framework of ideas could be developed or that a fundamental proposition is lacking. That is why theoretical physicists are presently concerned with string theory because it is one that could produce additional coherence to physics and unify existing ideas. (For a short article on string theory click here >, for interviews on string theory click here >). If string theory turns out to have no predictive power (see Not even wrong) then it would need to be viewed as a highly mathematical formulation of a belief that imparts a sense of well-being to some theoretical physicists.
After identifying the 'unsolved problems' of physics and other sciences the pragmatist hopes that the answers will lead to an increase in coherence of our world view. Coherence however should not be regarded, for all practical purposes, as a finite entity since, in the past, answers leading to additional coherence have also generated new questions. Over-reliance on coherence alone would then be self-defeating. Other important principles therefore need to be considered when assessing the utility of ideas.
On the Nature of Belief
www.onbelief.org
Scotland, 12th October 2007 and thereafter
Copyright 2007 onwards
