theories of truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » theories of truth » theories of truth

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

theories of truth

Philopage
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/23/08 - 03:26 AM: Subject: theories of truth	#1
Hi evryone this is my first post. I am looking forward to discussing issues with everyone. For starters I want to ask a question that my teacher brought up but never really went into because its a phil 101 class. He mentioned coherence theory of truth and i want to know what the other ones were bvecause he said there were three and people disagree on which ones are best. Does anyone know what these theories are and if so which one is right?

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 254

Posted 07/23/08 - 03:46 AM:	#2
Ah. An interesting subject though discussed quite heavily. There are three basic theories of truth: the Pragmatic, Coherence, and Correspondence theory. In short: 1) pragmatic theory states that truth is dependent of what is useful. If it is useful then it is true. The problem with this theory is that it is not utility that makes something true. Instead, it is useful because it is true. It is the reverse of its claim. If I believe jumping off a building will hurt me, it is not the utility that makes it true. It IS beneficial for me to think jumping off a building will hurt me not because it is useful, but because it IS true. Thus goes one issue with this theory. 2) Coherence theory sees truth as coherence with other statements/sentences. As long as the premise coheres with other premises then it is true. I do not believe I need to go into what makes this obviously false. 3) Correspondence theory states that truth is whatever corresponds to reality. If my belief is that I am sitting at my desk, and I happen to be sitting at my desk, then my belief is true. This is the theory many philosopher claim to be the "best" one, but it also has problems. It assumes that our beliefs correspond to reality at all. Is the sky blue? Obviously not because the sky is not even a thing and color is neither subjective or objective. It is a secondary quality that arises from an embodied interaction with the world. So colors exist in a limbo state between object and perceiver. So when I say, "I believe the sky is blue," the correspondence theory fails here. Because is the sky blue? Common sense says yes. But that is false. Our beliefs do not correspond to reality. Really...all three theories have their issues. There have been many attempts to make them all compatible but it is a difficult feat. Hope I have helped you. I tried writing it in layman's terms as I assume you are new to the subject.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1684

Posted 07/23/08 - 04:35 AM:	#3
So when I say, "I believe the sky is blue," the correspondence theory fails here. Because is the sky blue? Common sense says yes. But that is false. Our beliefs do not correspond to reality. Is that really a problem for correspondence theory? Correspondence theory is the view that our belief that the sky is blue is true, if the sky is blue. But if it is not the case that the sky is blue - as Kelby's argument purports to show - then our belief is a false one. Correspondence theory can sit quite comfortably with the view that some, or many, or even all, of our common sense beliefs happen to be false. It's only a theory about what makes true beliefs true: it says that facts, which are features of the world independent of our beliefs, make them true, if they are true. I think a problem for correspondence theory is that it (seems to) entail an implausible (?) metaphysics of negative facts. My belief that there are no gnomes in the garden is different from my belief that there are no fairies in the garden. I'd say both these beliefs are true. But what makes those beliefs true? Perhaps it is one fact that there no gnomes and it is a different fact that there are no fairies. But facts are features of the world, correspondence with which my true beliefs are true ones. Now, what plausible and distinct features of the world correspond to my true and distinct beliefs about the absence of gnomes and fairies? If there are such facts, the world seems to be populated with myriad negative facts about gnomes, fairies and endless other improbable characters, some of which nobody has any beliefs about at all. That seems to be an odd view about the nature of a world that is presumed to exist independently of us and our beliefs. Edited by Cuthbert on 07/23/08 - 04:39 AM

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 254

Posted 07/23/08 - 05:33 AM:	#4
Cuthbert is right. I failed to describe what was fully wrong with Correspondence, and my explanation really didn't make much sense. I left things out. According to the correspondence theory truth lies in the relationship between an objective reality independent of a perceiver, and the perceiver's words. When this theory was conceived, notions of Locke's secondary and primary qualities were still quite influential. Cognitive Science has shown us that there are no primary qualities in Locke's sense, because the way we experience qualities is heavily dependent on our neural makeup. The traditional assumption of cognitivism, which views the mind as holding exact formal representations that mirror the world, is compatible with correspondence, and has been for some time. But there is more to the way congition works than the cognitivist paradigm states. There is a relational aspect when it comes to sensorymotor systems and the environment. Our thoughts do not reflect or mirror an objective reality. Our minds are not passive-retrieval machines. Cognition is constructive. Of course this does not mean that there is no independent objective reality. Nor does it mean that all reality is subjective either. Instead a "mutual specification" occurs between the perceiver and the world and the way the world is perceived is very much determined by the perceiver's embodiment. With this, the correspondence theory runs into problems because it relies on the cognitivist assumption that our thoughts correspond to an objective reality, that we can know the qualities that are independent of a perceiver. Edited by Kelby on 07/23/08 - 05:46 AM
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Philopage
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/23/08 - 05:42 AM:	#5
Hey thanks you guys for your feedback, especially kelby for your layman terms from your first post. Not so much your second. haha I will look into it some more.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 254

Posted 07/23/08 - 05:51 AM:	#6
Yeah, sorry about that second post. It was a last minute rant. I wish I could have explained it more thoroughly. It's just a complicated subject matter and to go into all the scientific details wasn't my priority. But I do recommend looking into Embodied Cognition. It's a rising research program in neuroscience that has been influencing the field in amazing ways, so much so that most of the basic tenets of philosophy we find so dear are being called into question. Many have already been empirically refuted. It's an amazing field, and it seems to be one of the only places philosophy is starting to find an essential seat in.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

boagie
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
Location: toronto canada
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 13

Posted 07/23/08 - 06:11 AM:	#7
Kelby, My concept of truth does not seem to fit into any of the above. Truth is experience and judgement about the relation between subject and object, it is biologically determined. Truth can be descerned without direct biological experience by understanding the relation of the constitution of object relative to the reactionary response of the constitution of the subject, but even here, such knowledge would be referent to, previous experience. So, in fact, all truth is biologically determined. Edited by boagie on 07/23/08 - 06:15 AM
It is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 254

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/23/08 - 06:53 AM:	#8
boagie wrote: Kelby, My concept of truth does not seem to fit into any of the above. Truth is experience and judgement about the relation between subject and object, it is biologically determined. Truth can be descerned without direct biological experience by understanding the relation of the constitution of object relative to the reactionary response of the constitution of the subject, but even here, such knowledge would be referent to, previous experience. So, in fact, all truth is biologically determined. Now I'm not quite sure I've interpreted what you mean by all of this, but what I get so far is that truth is a biological matter. If that is what you are saying then yes, I agree with you. What is true is heavily reliant on what we find real. And what we find real are the basic-level categories which arise unconsciously, and these categories are conceptualized. So the very content and structure of our reasoning is influenced by these concepts which initially were created by perception. So the very act of reasoning out what truth is depends on the very structure of our cognitive processes. So...truth would be a dependent on our bioloigcal makeup, or...our embodiment.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Berkeley's Ghost
Moonlighting Idealist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 101

Posted 07/23/08 - 10:17 AM:	#9
Truth is a far deeper subject then it at first appears. A concept which confronts us at the start of discussion is the different forms of truth which all the "truth theories" assume. On an existant level everything which lies within our consciousness is in its own way true. The god Mars is true in its existance as idea, it is not however true as a physicalized incaration. It is these embodied facts which the Correspondence theory deals with, its theory is that that which is true is that which corresponds to reality, but before it even lays the first courner stone of its definition of truth it has already assumed the definition it seeks to prove by claiming reality is simply a cold collection of physicalized facts. Pragmatism is dichotomous to the Correspondence theory because it is an internalized rather then an externalized theory. It search not outwardly toward some almighty matter, but rather looks to study the inward beliefs of man. It in many ways is more a validity test for the beliefs of man, rather then a definition of the nature of what is true (which is what Correspondence attempts to do). Correspondence asks "what makes my thoughts true", while pragmatism asks "what is best for man to believe." They both have their uses, uses which are not by necessity opposed to each other. We run into problems when we assume they are mutually exclusive; they are not, for each theory struggles on the ground of its own subject, a subject born from presuppositions, ideas and definitions wholly distinct from the ground trudged by the other theories. They all have their place. boagie wrote: My concept of truth does not seem to fit into any of the above. Truth is experience and judgment about the relation between subject and object, it is biologically determined. Truth can be discerned without direct biological experience by understanding the relation of the constitution of object relative to the reactionary response of the constitution of the subject, but even here, such knowledge would be referent to, previous experience. So, in fact, all truth is biologically determined. Interesting, I would love to hear a little more detailed post on the theory. Truth to a certain extent is biological (though I shy away from the word) in so far as biology is the locus of sensation and experience. Man can not know apart form experience, for it is matter of our person. We experience objects, other people and at all times we experience our selves. So all truth is thus presented to us as experience and to study of truth is the study of our experiences; experiences which may be biologically determined. I think I am interpreting you somewhat correctly here. Of course in all this we should remember that this subject more then another leaves us open to truisms, we should try to avoid claiming anything tautological.
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.-Miguel de Unamuno Ceiling Cat is watching you post.

Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 545

Posted 07/23/08 - 10:37 AM:	#10
The correspondence theory is the only one that corresponds to our common sense notion of truth: we get an idea or belief, then we go out and look around to see if the idea or belief corresponds to what we find when we look. We say it's true when we have ample evidence of the correspondence. We get into philosophical hot water when we try to define what actually corresponds to what, and how it does that. Difficulties in demonstrating correspondence have led others to postulate the pragmatic and coherence theories, but those criteria of truth suffer from the absence of correspondence as an explanation of WHY there is coherence or utility in a belief or idea.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.