Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 716 views

    3 Theories of Truth

    Uploaded by

    shukri Mohamed
    This document outlines three different theories of truth: 1. The Correspondence Theory argues that a belief is true if it corresponds to reality. However, it cannot fully explain paradoxical statements. 2. The Coherence Theory argues that a belief is true if it coheres with and does not contradict our larger system of beliefs, even if that system is inaccurate. 3. The Pragmatic Theory argues that a belief is true if it is useful and allows for accurate predictions, but critics argue that usefulness does not necessarily equal truth.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    3 Theories of Truth

    Uploaded by

    shukri Mohamed
    716 views3 pages
    This document outlines three different theories of truth: 1. The Correspondence Theory argues that a belief is true if it corresponds to reality. However, it cannot fully explain paradoxical statements. 2. The Coherence Theory argues that a belief is true if it coheres with and does not contradict our larger system of beliefs, even if that system is inaccurate. 3. The Pragmatic Theory argues that a belief is true if it is useful and allows for accurate predictions, but critics argue that usefulness does not necessarily equal truth.

    Original Description:

    Different theories of truth

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document outlines three different theories of truth: 1. The Correspondence Theory argues that a belief is true if it corresponds to reality. However, it cannot fully explain paradoxical statements. 2. The Coherence Theory argues that a belief is true if it coheres with and does not contradict our larger system of beliefs, even if that system is inaccurate. 3. The Pragmatic Theory argues that a belief is true if it is useful and allows for accurate predictions, but critics argue that usefulness does not necessarily equal truth.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    716 views3 pages

    3 Theories of Truth

    Uploaded by

    shukri Mohamed
    This document outlines three different theories of truth: 1. The Correspondence Theory argues that a belief is true if it corresponds to reality. However, it cannot fully explain paradoxical statements. 2. The Coherence Theory argues that a belief is true if it coheres with and does not contradict our larger system of beliefs, even if that system is inaccurate. 3. The Pragmatic Theory argues that a belief is true if it is useful and allows for accurate predictions, but critics argue that usefulness does not necessarily equal truth.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Three Different Theories of Truth

    The Correspondence Theory of Truth:

    The Correspondence Theory of Truth is probably the most common and


    widespread way of understanding the nature of truth and falsehood. Put quite
    simply, the Correspondence Theory argues that “truth” is whatever corresponds
    to reality. An idea which corresponds with reality is true while an idea which does
    not correspond with reality is false.

    It is important to note here that “truth” is not a property of “facts.” This may seem
    odd at first, but a distinction is being made here between facts and beliefs. A fact
    is some set of circumstances in the world while a belief is an opinion about what
    those facts are. A fact cannot be either true or false; it simply is because that is
    the way the world is. A belief, however, is capable of being true or false because
    it may or may not accurately describe the world.

    Under the Correspondence Theory of Truth, the reason why we label certain
    beliefs as “true” is because they correspond to those facts about the world. Thus,
    the belief that the sky is blue is a “true” belief because of the fact that the sky is
    blue. Along with beliefs, we can count statements, propositions, sentences, etc.
    as capable of being true or false.

    The idea that truth consists in whatever matches reality can be traced back at
    least as far as Plato and was picked up in the philosophy of Aristotle. However, it
    was not long before critics found a problem, perhaps best expressed in the
    paradox formulated by Eubulides, a student of the Megara school of philosophy
    which was regularly at odds with Platonic and Aristotelian ideas.

    According to Eubulides, the Correspondence Theory of Truth leaves us in the


    lurch when we are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am
    saying here is false.” Those are statements, and hence capable of being true or
    false. However, if they are true because they correspond with reality, then they
    are false and if they are false because they fail to correspond with reality, then
    they must be true. Thus, no matter what we say about the truth or falsehood of
    these statements, we immediately contradict ourselves.

    This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is wrong or useless
    and, to be perfectly honest, it is difficult to give up such an intuitively obvious idea
    that truth must match reality. Nevertheless, the above criticisms should indicate
    that it probably isn’t a comprehensive explanation of the nature of truth. Arguably,
    it is a fair description of what truth should be, but it may not be an adequate
    description of how truth actually “works” in human minds and social situations.
    The Coherence Theory of Truth:

    The Coherence Theory of truth is probably second in popularity to the


    Correspondence Theory even though it often seems to be an accurate
    description of how our conception of truth actually works. Put simply: a belief is
    true when we are able to incorporate it in an orderly and logical manner into a
    larger and complex system of beliefs or, even more simply still, a belief is true
    when it fits in with the set of all our other beliefs without creating a contradiction.

    Sometimes this seems like an odd way to actually describe truth. After all, a belief
    can be an inaccurate description of reality and fit in with a larger, complex system
    of further inaccurate descriptions of reality, according to the Coherence Theory,
    that inaccurate belief would still be called “truth” even though it didn’t actually
    describe the way the world really was. Does that really make any sense?

    Well, possibly … the reason is because statements can’t really be verified in


    isolation. Whenever you test an idea, you are also actually testing a whole set of
    ideas at the same time. For example, when you pick up a ball in your hand and
    drop it, it isn’t simply our belief about gravity which is tested but also our beliefs
    about a host of other things, not least of which would be the accuracy of our
    visual perception.

    So, if statements are only tested as part of larger groups, then one might
    conclude that a statement can be classified as “true” not so much because it can
    be verified against reality but rather because it could be integrated into a group of
    complex ideas, the whole set of which could then be tested against reality. In this
    case Coherence Theory isn’t that far from the Correspondence Theory and the
    reason is that while individual statements may be judged as true or false based
    upon their ability to cohere with a larger system, it is assumed that that system is
    one which accurately corresponds to reality.

    Because of this, the Coherence Theory does manage to capture something


    important about the way we actually conceive of truth in our daily lives. It isn’t that
    unusual to dismiss something as false precisely because it fails to cohere with a
    system of ideas which we are confident are true. Granted, maybe the system we
    assume to be true is quite a way off the mark, but so long as it continues to be
    successful and is capable of slight adjustments in the light of new data, our
    confidence is reasonable.
    The Pragmatic Theory of Truth:

    The Pragmatic Theory of truth determines whether or not a belief is true or not
    based on whether it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does
    not, then it is not true. As with Coherence Theory, truth in this sense is nothing to
    do with the way the world ‘really is’ but is just a function of whether an idea can
    be used as a model to make useful predictions about what is going to happen in
    the world. As a result pragmatic truths can only be learnt through interaction with
    the world: we don’t discover truth by sitting alone in a room and thinking about it.

    There are, of course, a number of obvious objections that can be raised against
    the Pragmatic Theory of Truth. For one thing, the notion of “what works” is very
    ambiguous. What happens when a belief works in one sense, but fails in
    another? For example, a belief that one will succeed may give a person the
    psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal but in the end, they
    may fail in their ultimate goal. Was their belief “true”?

    Furthermore, when a belief “works” in this sense, why call it “true”? Why not call it
    something like “useful”? A useful belief is not necessarily the same as a true
    belief and, what’s worse, is that people don’t typically use the word “true” in
    normal conversation to mean useful. For example, for the average person, the
    statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is faithful” does not at all mean
    the same as “It is true that my spouse is faithful.” Granted, it may be the case that
    true beliefs are also usually the ones that are useful, but not always. As
    Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful than truth.

    Now, pragmatism may be a handy means for distinguishing truth from untruth.
    After all, that which is true should produce predictable consequences for us in our
    lives. In order to determine what is real and what is unreal, it would not be
    unreasonable to focus primarily upon that which works. This, however, is not
    quite the same as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth.

    You might also like