Coherentism (Bradley) 
Bradley
•	truth-bearers vs. truth-makers, part two.
•	in the case of facts about perception and memory, the test of truth that we must and do use is that of system, coherence.
•	no independent facts, no infallible judgments.

•	so, why do so many philosophers insist that there are independent facts and infallible judgments?  (1) such data, they say, can actually be shown, and (2) these data must exist or intelligence would be impossible.

Bradley’s replies:
1.	What actually can be shown is very uninformative.  We only have infallible access to raw feels, not to propositions or judgments.  
a. 	Simple raw feels don’t allow us to deny any judgments.  
b. 	Complex ideas (conjoined raw feels) such as a, b, c only allow us to deny the assertion that a’s, b’s and c’s are never to be found together.  This still isn’t very useful.
c. 	Why we do not have infallible access to particular facts of sensation/memory, such as “I am now experiencing red.”:  
i. 	What do we mean by “I”?  No basis to assert this “I”.  We need a notion of time for this and nothing infallibly justifies a judgment about time.
ii. 	Parallel problems with “now” and “here.”
2. 	Infallible and incorrigible judgments are not required for knowledge, and cannot be shown to exist.  Therefore, we should abandon them.

•	Of course we need sense experience for knowledge, but this is not the same as saying that infallible judgments of sensation/memory are the “foundation” of our knowledge.  Some sensory judgments are necessary, but none are indispensable.
•	These judgments are ladders that may always be thrown away.

•	Bradley’s coherentism: facts are true just so long as they contribute to overall order of the system.
•	A consequence of this:  no judgment of perception/memory will ever be more than probable.
•	The danger of fancy.  Fancy renders the system less coherent and is therefore no real risk at all.
•	We strive for a system that is both coherent and comprehensive.  However, this is just a normative ideal.  “Truth is an ideal expression of the Universe, at once coherent and comprehensive.”