Lesseon 2: Methods of Philosophizing 2.2: Theories of Truth: Coherence Theory

QUARTER 1- INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 11
LESSEON 2: METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

2.2: THEORIES OF TRUTH
In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following Theories of
Truth:
1. The Correspondence theory of Truth:
The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if
it corresponds to the way things actually are based on the facts. It argues that an idea that
correspond with reality is true while an idea, which does not correspond to reality is false.
For example, if I say, “The sky is blue” then I looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue,
then my statement is true. On the other hand, if I say, “Pigs have wings” and then I
checked a pig and it does not have wings, then my statement is false. In general,
statements of beliefs, propositions, and ideas are capable being true or false.
However, according the Eubulides, a student of the Megara school of philosophy,
“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.” These are statements
and therefore, are capable of being true or false. But if they are true because they
correspond with reality, then any preceding statement or proposition must be false.
Conversely, if these statements are false because they do not agree with reality, then any
preceding statement or proposition 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 is not 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
(Cline, 2007). Austin Cline argues, it is important to note here that “truth” is not a property
of “facts.” This may seem odd at first, but a distinction must be made 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 because it simply 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
2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:
It has already been established that the Correspondence Theory assumes that a
belief is true when we are able to confirm it with reality. In other words, by simply checking
if the statement or belief agrees with the way things really are, we can know the truth.
However, as Austin Cline argues, this manner of determining the truth is rather odd and
simplistic.
Cline said that a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality that may also fit
in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate descriptions of reality. Thus, by
relying on the Correspondence Theory, that inaccurate belief will still be called “truth” even
though it does not actually describe actual state of things. So how do we resolve this
problem?
In order to know the truth of a statement, it must be tested as part of a larger set of
ideas. Statements cannot be sufficiently evaluated in isolation. For example, if you pick up
a ball and drop it accidentally, the action cannot be simply explained by our belief in the
law of gravity which can be verified but also by a host of other factors that may have
something to do with the incident, such as the accuracy of our visual perception.
For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger system of complex
ideas, then one might conclude that the statement is “true”. By testing this set of complex
ideas against reality, then one can ascertain whether the statement is “true” or “false”.
Consequently, by using this method, we establish that the statement “coheres” with the
larger system. In a sense, the Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory
since both evaluates statements based on their agreement with reality. The difference lies
in the method where the former involves a larger system while the latter relies on a single
evidence of fact.
1
SIR ALEX CLASS
As a result, Coherence Theories have often been rejected for lacking justification in
their application to other areas of truth, especially in statements or claims about the
natural world, empirical data in general, and assertions about practical matters of
psychology and society, especially when they are used without support from the other major
theories of truth.
Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist philosophers such as Baruch
Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and the British
philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this method had its resurgence in the ideas of several
proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.
3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:
The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true if it has a
useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not, then it is not true. In addition, we
can know whether a belief/statement is true by examining the consequence of holding or
accepting the statement/belief to be true. For example, there are some people who think
that there are “ghosts” or “vampires” because they find it useful in explaining unusual
phenomena and in dealing with fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word
“truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.
However, there are objections against this theory of truth. For Austin Cline, truth
that is based on what works is very ambiguous. What happens when a belief works in one
sense but fails in another? Suppose a belief that one will succeed may give a person the
psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal but in the end he fails in his
ultimate goal. Was his belief “true”?
In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it is more appropriate to call it
useful rather than “true”. A belief that is useful is not necessarily true and in normal
conversations, people do not typically use the word “true” to mean “useful”.
To illustrate, 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 that true beliefs
are also usually the ones that are useful, but it is not usually the case. As Nietzsche argued,
sometimes untruth may be more useful than truth. In sum, we can know if
statements/beliefs are true if we look at each statement/belief and determine if they
correspond to facts, cohere with the rules of the system and result into useful application.
It must be noted, however, that Philosophers “continue to argue with each other on
which among these three general methods is the correct one or one that works for all kinds
of statement or beliefs” (Mabaquiao, 59). Nevertheless, it is not necessary to subscribe to
only one method and consider it to work for everyone. Perhaps it is better to use any of the
three methods that is appropriate for any given statement or belief that is being examined
References
Books:
Abella, Roberto D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.
Quezon City: C&E Publishing
Binswanger, Harry. (2014). How We Know. New York: TOF Publications.
Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl (2002). Introduction to Logic (11th edition). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall
Hurley, Patrick J. (2011). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11th edition). Boston:
Cengage Learning
Mabacquiao, N. (2017). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon
City: Phoenix Publishing.
Peikoff, Leonard (1990). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York:
Dutton
Rand, Ayn (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (2nd edition). New York:
Meridian
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch & Fieser, James (2008). Socrates to Sartre and Beyond
(8thedition). New Yok: McGraw Hill
2
SIR ALEX CLASS
Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

Websites:
Adapted from articles by Austin Cline:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/05/29/epistemology-correspondence-theory-
oftruth.htm accessed May 31, 2020.
http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/Knower/Useful%20Information/Three%20Different
%20Theories%20of%20Truth.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/allegor
3
SIR ALEX CLASS

Lesseon 2: Methods of Philosophizing 2.2: Theories of Truth: Coherence Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesseon 2: Methods of Philosophizing 2.2: Theories of Truth: Coherence Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUARTER 1- INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON 11

LESSEON 2: METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books

You might also like