Is it possible to hold truly contradictory beliefs together?

Incoherence is a state of mind in which we hold inconsistent beliefs at the same time. For example: I believe that great cooks never overcook eggs; I think I am a great cook; and I believe that I overcook eggs. I may hold each of these beliefs individually, but taken together, they clearly don’t make sense.

Precisely speaking, incoherence or inconsistency is not the same as irrationality, according to philosophers. Irrationality can be found in a single belief — for example, “I think the Earth is flat” — but this is often difficult to challenge directly. Someone might claim, for instance, that it’s a special world we haven’t discovered yet and cannot deny, so the Earth could be flat.

Incoherence, on the other hand, is easier to point out and is often enough to weaken an opponent’s argument. That’s why debaters focus on identifying logical inconsistencies rather than attacking the opponent’s belief itself.

When it comes to humans, we are often irrational — at least more so than economists have traditionally assumed. In contrast, we are — or more precisely, our beliefs are — incoherent only when they are not transparent. When we become aware of all our beliefs at the same time — as in the earlier example — we tend to revise at least one of them to make them coherent.

To conclude, humans can be irrational, but we are generally good at maintaining coherence among our beliefs. We may hold inconsistent views, but only until those beliefs become transparent to us.

This summary is based on Alex Worsnip’s essay “What is incoherence?” (Aeon), which explores how incoherent beliefs arise, why they differ from irrational beliefs, and what this reveals about human reasoning and self-correction. Main essay link: https://aeon.co/essays/why-language-remains-the-most-flexible-brain-to-brain-interface