Which Theorie of Truth Is the Most Credible - Essay Example

Theories of truth: which is the most credible? and Introduction What is the truth? This is a question that has generated heated debates and researches among philosophers. The debate has led to the generation of theories of truth. Cowan and Spiegel names three major hypothesis of truth: the correspondence theory, coherence theory and the pragmatic theory (35). According to them, the coherence theory of truth is of the opinion that a proposition becomes the truth if it adheres with the set of beliefs of that person (Cowan and Spiegel 39). Further, they state that the correspondence theory of truth holds the view that a proposition becomes the truth so long as it has a bearing to the reality (39). Lastly, they argue that a proposition becomes true if it aids the believer in achieving desirable results (42). My main objective in this paper is to do a deep analysis of the three theories and validate my dissertation that the correspondence theory is the strongest of all the theories. Elaboration. Pragmatic theory This theory qualifies a belief to be the ‘truth’ if it achieves desirable results for the believer Truth, according to this theory, consists in its practical effects on our daily endeavors. This theory has been disputed too. According to this theory, the utility of a belief qualifies it. But is the usefulness of a belief predictable? As an example, assume we believe that the world will end in 2015. The truth to this isn’t in any book for us to check but according to the pragmatic theory, we have to determine its effect on us. Question would be, how can we predict this, yet we cannot tell what the effects would be before it actually happens? Pinning down the aftermath of our beliefs is majorly what flaws this theory since it’s pretty hard. Much objections has also revolved around the idea of ‘work’ as used in this theory since it states that the truth is what works.But what exactly it means for an idea to work? One view is that a theory is vindicated if it corresponds almost accurately to reality. If I theorize that the white house will forge a ceasefire agreement with the Syrian government by the end of 2013 and indeed the deal is sealed by this time, the theory is vindicated. However, this assumes a correspondence view of truth in that the predictive proposition-ceasefire agreement by the end of 2013-is indeed verified by the happening of the results as predicted. On the other hand, work gains relevance to an individual if the beliefs he/she holds remain worthwhile, regardless of the effects. Both of these views, however, are just optimistic views, which may be true or false thus unreliable. Moreover, Russell believes that one’s appraisal of the upshots of believing something must also be true. Yet it depends on whether it ‘works’ to infinity for the appraisal itself to be regarded as the truth. This creates a problem because one may never pin down the truth as it needs to be verified all the time. The correspondence theory gains credit here since it advocates for a non-subjective relationship between the belief and reality, regardless of the effects of that belief. Pragmatism is also disputed on its claim that truth is what produces worthy results. This makes no sense. In view of the following statements: I. Most people are good II. It is worthy to believe that most people are good Given that the set of statements express the same suggestion, then one would be right to say that they mean the same. Yet, in essence, the meanings of the sentences are not the same in a manner that they would be interchangeable. As such, the meaning of a ‘truth’ cannot be expressed through the usefulness of a belief. Another loose end to this theory is that a belief may work and be a lie. People, for example, believe in God, but they don’t know the truth about the existence of God in heaven. But the belief in God ‘works’ and is taken as ‘truth’ looking at the effects on His creation. But His existence may be a lie. Lastly, the pragmatic theory contradicts itself in the sense that it can allow two propositions to be true at the same time, whether they contradict themselves or not.(Kirkham 97). According to this theory, if an individual thinks of himself as the smartest person in the world then he is indeed, because he believes it. What if another person believes the same? We cannot have two smartest people at the same time. Coherence theory According to this theory, a proposition becomes the truth if it adheres with the set of beliefs of that person (Cowan and Spiegel 39). The truth, according to them, is based on what the individual believes in. By coherence, in this case, I mean logical consistency. Notably, this theory analyzes the truth in total isolation to the real, external world. According to this theory, answers are not to be found outside oneself but one only needs to look inwardly at his beliefs.(Cowan and Spiegel 40). For instance, suppose a lady named Stella has the belief that: “The sun raises in the east and sets in the west” To accept the above belief as true, Stella needs, according to the coherence theory, to compare this statement with what she already believes in and decide whether it coheres with her other believes gathered over time. This theory too has been met by serious objections. First, it suggests that contradictory propositions can be true that two different individuals can believe in two dissimilar items as long as it corresponds to what they individually believe. (Cowan and Spiegel 41). Allowing a proposition to be true to one individual allows it not to be true to another person’s belief. Secondly, the theory implies that truth is comparative. If I believe that a dog barks, and my sister believes that a dog chirps, according to me she is wrong and according to her I am wrong. This is because according to this theory, the truth is judged relative to different peoples belief systems (Cowan and Spiegel 41). Thirdly, the theory alienates the knower from the world. The truth is judged in total isolation from the world outside ones mind. Practically speaking, whether or not a dog barks has nothing to do with the status of the world. The only question is whether that clings to a persons’ belief system. This is not logical because to most people, truth has to do with what is happening in their world. For instance, most people will be quick to believe that the earth revolves around the sun. This is because, according to Cowan and Spiegel, they know scientific research has shown this and owing to their experiences with solar eclipses. To avoid this criticism, Advocates of this theory have adopted antirealism which deny the existence of another outside world. This view has also been criticized as self-defeating. Owing to such shortcomings, some version of the correspondence theory seems to hold water, despite the difficulties therein. The Correspondence theory of truth In my opinion, this is the most intuitive theory of truth that relates truth to reality. This theory can be taken as being the ordinary view of truth that is ignored everyday by most people. It holds the view that a proposition becomes the truth so long as it has a bearing to the reality (Kirkham 63). As Cowan and Spiegel further argues, propositions must match up with the reality for them to be taken as the ‘truth’. Truth must depict the factual world. For instance, the proposition that "human beings have two legs" will be true considering that in virtue, normal human beings have two legs. Because this theory requires individuals to provide proof or scientific research to back up their claims, I hold the view that its, relatively speaking, the strongest of all theories. The fact that it also seeks to explain what’s makes a proposition true, unlike the other theories that seeks to explain whether we can know it’s true, makes it more credible. This theory too, seems to be the only that captures what we mean by ‘truth’ in ordinary discussion. However, just like the others, this theory has critics who have raised serious objections. In a bid to validate my view that this theory is the strongest, I will state the objections and seek to defend my view against them. First, and most significant of all objections, is the idea of correspondence, and what is really meant by the assertion that a proposition corresponds to reality. Opponents have argued that the idea of correspondence is vague. Such opponents fail to understand that correspondence is in relation facts, reality and propositions. In view of the following statement: I. President John Kennedy succumbed to an assassin’s bullet. One would ask, “What is the relationship between this statement and the real world for us to arrive at "correspondence"? The statement does not by itself imply a ‘truth’ nor does it make it real that "Kennedy" fell by the bullet. Research and experience makes it the truth. This difficulty in pinning down the nature of correspondence has led to an ignorant dismissal of this strong theory by many philosophers. But even so, the word ‘correspondence’ can be left out in such a way as to leave no enigmatic relation. For instance, instead of saying a proposition is true if and only it corresponds to reality, proponents of this theory can omit the term ‘correspondence’. This would avoid argument over the term ‘correspondence’. Secondly, opponents argue that this theory is devoted to the existence of ‘facts’. This debate revolves around the question what are facts?’ But notably, this objection is primarily based on suspicions that all things are not physical or detectable thorough our senses are unreal. This is a naturalistic view, whose proponents are skeptical about the existence of abstract things like facts. But abstract ideas exists and therefore this objection does not hold water. Application of the Christian worldview to the theory With regard to the contemporary Christian worldview of the truth, however, the correspondence theory of truth holds little if no relevance. The common denominator between some human philosophers, for instance the correspondence theorists, and biblical versions of "truth" is the acknowledgement that truth exists. The point of departure, however, is how to define "truth". A professing Christian lives by the worldview of God, just like correspondent theorists see the world through the proponent’s eyes. The first step into using a Christian approach to the truth is to realize God’s word is the truth (New Jerusalem Bible, John 17.17). That truth is propositional, recorded in Gods word, forms the focal point of a Chrisman’s life and it is personified in Jesus Christ (New Jerusalem Bible, John 14.6). All answers are to be found in the Holy Bible. Like the theory of correspondence, the bible acknowledges the existence of facts; the events recorded in the bible are undisputable, unchanging historical facts. Moreover, like the correspondence theorists who believe in their theory, Christians believe all the preaching of the bible and live by it, regardless of whether it works for them or not. Human philosophers theories and the Christian views of truth are like birds of different feathers. In fact, as Apostle Paul puts it, not only are the thoughts of non-believers useless, but also their s minds are stupid and dwell in darkness (New Jerusalem Bible, Romans 1.21). Conclusion It is evident that the coherent and pragmatic theories are faced with significant challenges. Most significantly, they make the implication that truth is comparative. This makes no sense. On the other hand, the correspondence theory also has challenges which, as far as I could, objectively watered them down. Since the correspondence theory advocates for the judgment of a proposition against the reality in the determination of whether or not the proposition is the ‘truth’, it is therefore more credible than the other theories. In the end, Only God knows which theory is stronger, but from the above analysis of the theories, and from an open-ended mind, the correspondence theory is the most credible. Works cited Cowan, S, and J Spiegel. 2009. The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy. 1st ed. Jones, Alexander. 1967. The New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Kirkham, Richard L. 1992. Theories of Truth. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Russell, Bertrand. 1972. A History of Western Philosophy. 1st ed. New York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster. Read More