---
slug: coherentism
name: Coherentism
one_liner: "A structural response to a justification/support regress that neither posits a foundation nor accepts an endless chain: elements are validated by their MUTUAL fit within a self-supporting web, so justification is a property of the whole system of mutually-constraining parts rather than something transmitted linearly from basic to derived."
type: prime
schema_version: 2
status: density_v2_draft
categories: [structural, epistemology, systems]
origin_domain: epistemology
alternate_origin_domains: [logic, systems_theory, computer_science, law, philosophy_of_science]
aliases: [coherence_theory, mutual_support_justification, self_supporting_web, holistic_justification, neuraths_boat, no_foundation_network_of_belief]
related: []
solution_archetypes: []
review_flags:
- "OPERATOR-DERIVED (op-11 analogy completion) — reached by the analogy `infinite_regress : foundationalism :: circular_structure : coherentism`: coherentism is the response to the justification/support regress that answers with a self-supporting WEB of mutual constraint rather than a foundational base (foundationalism) or an endless chain (infinitism). Discovered 2026-07-04. MODERATE hold (verified absent from corpus; established scientific name — coherence theory of justification/truth). STATUS: HOLD pending owner keep/cut."
- "Created 2026-07-04; STUB ONLY (frontmatter + Core Idea + Notes). SI/SF/similarity are PROPOSER ESTIMATES pending triangulation. Body sections (Structural Signature onward) NOT written."
- "REGRESS-RESPONSE LATTICE-GAP (make prominent): the regress problem has THREE classical responses forming a small lattice — `foundationalism` (a basic grounding element; already stubbed in v2_density_pilot from op-01), `coherentism` (this stub — mutual support), and `infinitism` (accept the endless chain; ALSO ABSENT from corpus). The corpus holds `infinite_regress` (the problem) and now foundationalism (one response) but is missing BOTH coherentism and infinitism. Recommend the owner evaluate the three responses TOGETHER as a completion of the regress-response family (also an op-14 lattice-completion signal). Flag both the three-way family and infinitism's absence prominently."
- "Phase-C action: re-similarity-check vs `foundationalism` (sibling response — the contrasting structure) and `infinite_regress` (parent problem), plus self-consistency-type primes, `reflective_equilibrium` if present, and network/mutual-support primes; confirm it is a genuine distinct structural pattern (mutual support / self-supporting web) and not a restatement of self-consistency or holism; draw a response-of edge from `infinite_regress` and a sibling/contrast edge to `foundationalism`; write a v1 draft and sync the one_liner across v1/v2 per CLAUDE.md before merge."
substrate_independence:
  composite_substrate_independence: 3
  domain_breadth: 4
  structural_abstraction: 3
  transfer_evidence: 4
  reasoning: 'The bare structure — a system whose elements are validated not by grounding in a privileged base but by their mutual consistency within a self-supporting web, so that support flows in loops and the unit of evaluation is the global coherence of the whole — is a genuinely substrate-neutral form, but it carries a moderate epistemology-of-justification residue in its canonical framing. It recurs where elements are held up by each other rather than by a foundation: constraint-satisfaction networks, self-consistent field methods, distributed webs of trust (versus a root of trust), holistic/systems thinking, reflective equilibrium in ethics, and interpretive/legal coherence. domain_breadth scores 4 because these siblings are structurally unlike yet share the mutual-support engine, though several sit within reasoning/justification territory rather than fully unrelated substrates. structural_abstraction is 3: the core is a clean statement about how validation is distributed (loops of mutual constraint, whole-system evaluation), but the standard vocabulary — justification, belief, coherence — imports an evaluative/epistemic cast that keeps it off the higher band. Transfer evidence is solid (independently instantiated in constraint solving, self-consistent-field numerics, and distributed-trust architectures, not only in epistemology).'
similarity_to_nearest_existing_prime:
  slug: foundationalism
  similarity: 0.60
structural_framed:
  label: structural
  aggregate: 0.45
  criteria: {vocab_travels: 0.6, evaluative_weight: 0.4, institutional_origin: 0.3, human_practice_bound: 0.3, import_vs_recognize: 0.5}
  rationale: 'Reads structural-to-mixed. The core claim — a self-supporting web whose elements are validated by mutual fit rather than grounding in a base, with support flowing in loops and coherence of the whole as the unit of evaluation — is recognized rather than imported, and travels into constraint-satisfaction networks, self-consistent field methods, and distributed webs of trust without carrying epistemology vocabulary. The frame residue is moderate: the canonical name and framing ("justification," "belief," "coherence theory") import an evaluative/epistemic cast (keeping evaluative_weight and import_vs_recognize mid-range), and the concept has an institutional home in philosophy. But the underlying structure — no privileged element, circular mutual support treated as a feature, whole-system consistency as the criterion — is substrate-neutral. Somewhat more framed than its sibling `foundationalism` owing to the "coherence of belief" default framing.'
phase_b_passes_completed: []
---
# Coherentism

## Core Idea

Coherentism is the structural response to a justification/support regress that neither posits a foundation (`foundationalism`) nor accepts an endless chain (infinitism), but instead holds that elements are justified or supported by their *mutual fit within a self-supporting web*. Where the regress problem asks "what supports the support?" and threatens either an infinite backward chain or an arbitrary stopping point, coherentism answers by refusing the linear picture altogether: justification is not transmitted from basic elements to derived ones along a directed chain, but is a property of the *whole system* of mutually-constraining parts. The distinctive anatomy is fourfold: (1) there is no privileged foundational element — nothing plays the role of unmoved ground; (2) support flows in *loops* — elements hold each other up rather than resting on a base; (3) the unit of evaluation is the *global coherence/consistency of the whole*, not the soundness of any single link; and (4) circularity is treated as a *feature* — virtuous mutual support — rather than as a fallacy. It is the "network holds itself up" alternative to "the tower rests on bedrock."

The load-bearing move is the relocation of justification from links to systems. In a foundational picture, one asks of each element what grounds it and traces the answer downward until reaching a self-evident base; a loop in that trace is a vicious circle. Coherentism inverts the evaluation: no element is asked to justify itself in isolation, and the presence of loops is not a defect but the mechanism — each element is constrained by, and constrains, the others, and the system as a whole earns its standing by how tightly its parts fit. Neurath's boat captures the shape exactly: a ship rebuilt plank by plank at sea, never dry-docked on a foundation, kept afloat only by the mutual bracing of its parts. The feature present here and absent in the foundational response is precisely the *global* criterion — coherence is a predicate of the whole configuration, not a relation inherited down a chain — and the reinterpretation of circularity from bug to feature.

Read structurally, the same self-supporting-web shape appears wherever elements are validated by mutual consistency rather than grounding in a base, and the siblings are genuinely unlike. In *constraint-satisfaction networks*, a solution is a global assignment in which every element is consistent with its neighbors, with no single seed variable privileged. In *self-consistent field methods*, a solution is one that reproduces itself when fed back through the system — validity is a fixed point of mutual constraint, not a derivation from axioms. In *distributed webs of trust* (versus a single root of trust), an identity is vouched for by many mutually-endorsing peers rather than certified from an apex authority. In *reflective equilibrium*, principles and considered judgments are adjusted against one another until they cohere, with neither given as bedrock. In *interpretive and legal coherence*, a reading earns its authority by fitting the whole body of prior material. Across these, the shared abstract engine is a system whose elements are held up by their mutual fit, evaluated globally; the epistemological case is one species of the genus, and the structurally-unlike siblings show the genus is the bare mutual-support structure.

## Notes

**Provenance.** Produced by operator 11 (analogy completion), via the analogy `infinite_regress : foundationalism :: circular_structure : coherentism`: coherentism is one of the three classical responses to the justification/support regress problem, the one that answers with a self-supporting web of mutual constraint (circular structure treated as virtuous) rather than a foundational base or an endless chain. Surfaced 2026-07-04. Established scientific construct: the coherence theory of justification (and of truth) in epistemology, contrasted with foundationalism; associated with Neurath's boat, BonJour, and reflective-equilibrium method. Claimed siblings: constraint-satisfaction networks, self-consistent field methods, distributed webs of trust (versus a root of trust), holistic/systems thinking, reflective equilibrium, and interpretive/legal coherence. Verified absent from the corpus. Manifest: MODERATE hold.

**REGRESS-RESPONSE LATTICE-GAP (prominent flag).** The justification/support regress problem admits THREE classical responses that together form a small, well-defined lattice: `foundationalism` (halt the regress at a basic, self-supporting grounding element — already stubbed in v2_density_pilot from op-01), `coherentism` (this stub — replace the chain with a self-supporting web of mutual constraint), and `infinitism` (accept the endless chain as genuinely infinite and non-vicious — currently ABSENT from the corpus). The corpus already holds `infinite_regress` (the *problem*) and, via the op-01 stub, foundationalism (one *response*) — but is missing BOTH coherentism and infinitism. The strong recommendation is that the owner evaluate the three responses *together* as a completion of the regress-response family rather than adjudicating coherentism in isolation: this is also an op-14 lattice-completion signal (parent problem present, one of three sibling responses present, two absent). Two things to flag explicitly: (a) the three-way family should be treated as a unit — the owner may prefer a single "regress responses" treatment, or all three as sibling children of `infinite_regress`; and (b) **infinitism's absence** is itself a discovery worth capturing, so the family is completed rather than half-held.

**For owner evaluation (keep/cut).** The case FOR: coherentism completes (with infinitism) the regress-response family the corpus half-holds, and names a genuinely distinct structural pattern — mutual support within a self-supporting web, with circularity as feature and whole-system coherence as the criterion — that has wide, structurally-unlike reach (constraint-satisfaction networks, self-consistent field methods, Neurath's boat, distributed trust versus root of trust, reflective equilibrium, legal/interpretive coherence). It is a canonical named construct, not a coinage, verified absent. The RISKS Kurt should weigh: (1) **it is somewhat framed** — the canonical vocabulary (justification, belief, coherence theory) carries an epistemology cast, so the structural-framed aggregate sits higher than a fully structural prime; (2) **it should be evaluated as a SET** with foundationalism and infinitism, not alone — the owner may prefer a unified "regress responses" treatment or all three as siblings, and the keep/cut for coherentism is partly a decision about how to hold the family; (3) **overlap with self-consistency / holism primes** — the discriminating claim is that coherentism is specifically the *no-foundation, mutual-support* response to a regress, with the global-coherence criterion and the loop-as-feature reinterpretation, not merely "everything relates to everything" (holism) or "the state reproduces itself" (self-consistency); those should attach as neighbors/mechanisms, not mergers. Sharp keep/cut question: *is "a self-supporting web of mutual constraint" a distinct prime, or is it already covered by self-consistency / holism plus foundationalism-as-contrast?* — the proposer's answer is that the mutual-support-as-regress-response structure, with circularity reframed as virtue and coherence-of-the-whole as the unit of evaluation, is a level the corpus does not currently name.

**At incorporation.** Re-run similarity against `foundationalism` (sibling response — the contrasting structure; the primary confusion to rule out), `infinite_regress` (parent problem), any self-consistency / self-consistent-field primes, `reflective_equilibrium` (if present — a method instance, screen for confusion), and network/mutual-support primes, to confirm no collapse. If kept: draw a response-of / sibling edge from `infinite_regress` → `coherentism` (mirroring the foundationalism edge) and an explicit contrast/sibling edge `foundationalism` ↔ `coherentism`; and — critically — evaluate `infinitism` at the same time so the three-way regress-response family is completed rather than left half-held (op-14 lattice-completion). Add a missing-edge note flagging the three-response lattice and infinitism's absence. Write a v1 draft and sync the one_liner across v1 and v2 per CLAUDE.md before merge.
