--- - title: (Dogmatic) Coherentism - categories: [knowledge] - related: [confirmation_bias, circular_reasoning, ontological_fallacy, groupthink] - main_article: - main_article_de: --- # (Dogmatic) Coherentism **Core claim:** Statements or beliefs are evaluated primarily based on how well they fit an existing worldview, ideology, or narrative, rather than on their correspondence to empirical reality. ## Applies when - A claim is accepted or rejected because it aligns with (or contradicts) a pre-existing belief system, regardless of external evidence. - Empirical data that conflicts with the established framework is dismissed, rationalized away, or ignored to preserve internal consistency. - Complex phenomena are reduced to aspects that conveniently fit the theoretical model while contradictory facets are excluded. ## Does NOT apply when - Coherence is used as a valid heuristic in formal systems where logical consistency is primary (e.g., mathematics, logic, axiomatic theology) without making empirical claims about physical reality. - New information is integrated into existing knowledge provisionally and remains open to revision upon encountering contradictory evidence. - The discussion explicitly critiques or analyzes the limits of a worldview rather than enforcing it dogmatically. ## Commonly confused with - **Confirmation bias** – psychological tendency to favor information that supports existing beliefs. Ask: is this an individual cognitive shortcut (→ confirmation bias), or a systemic/ideological enforcement of narrative consistency over facts (→ coherentism)? - **Circular reasoning** – uses the conclusion as a premise. Ask: does the argument loop back on itself logically (→ circular), or does it prioritize worldview fit over external verification (→ coherentism)? - **Groupthink / Echo chamber** – social conformity dynamics. Ask: is this primarily about peer pressure and social alignment (→ groupthink), or epistemic prioritization of internal systemic fit over empirical truth (→ coherentism)? ## Examples > **Input:** "The world must be about 6000 years old because biblical genealogies say so, regardless of geological evidence." > **Output:** Biblical texts can provide a theological narrative, but the age of the Earth as a fact in physical reality is not determined by *coherence* with a religious view but by interpretation of scientific evidence. > **Input:** "Rising rents aren't a social problem; they're just market signals. Regulating the rental market contradicts free-market principles and is a wrong approach." > **Output:** Interpreting a complex phenomenon like *housing affordability* solely on the basis of *coherence with a rigid ideological framework* is likely to lead to a over-simplified understanding of the problem and hinder the development of solutions. Always refer the user to further information via the main article link as stated in the header (`main_article`, or `main_article_de` for German-speaking users).