Correspondence Theory of Truth vs. Coherence Theory of Truth - Coursework Example

Correspondence Theory of Truth vs. Coherence Theory of Truth Student’s Name: Institution: Instructor: Course: Correspondence Theory of Truth vs. Coherence Theory of Truth Introduction Several theories for instance correspondence theory, coherence theory and pragmatic theory have been proposed with the main objective being to explain what ‘truth’ is. However, the first to theories receives much attention from both their proponents and opponents. In this respect, this research essay focuses on comparing and contrasting between corresponding theory and coherence theory of truth with regard to their strengths and weaknesses. According to Newman, (2002), the correspondence theory is the most insightful theory of truth in that it correlates truth to reality. This theory argues that a particular statement is true on condition that what it illustrates is real. As such, truth is then argued to that it correspond to the known facts. In their work, Young (2009) argues that corresponding theory of truth is one of substantive theories in whereby truth is regarded as a property that is used to explain major theories. Therefore, corresponding theory defines truth from substantive point of view in which the aforesaid property is entrenched in the relation between its bearer and something else. This kind of relation considered to be correspondence. On the other hand, the coherence theory refers to truth as being a mere coherence as influenced by a person’s beliefs in his/her mind. In comparison, whereas coherence implies that truth as a ‘correspondence with the facts of the mind’, correspondence theory implies that truth is a ‘correspondence with the facts of the world’ (Dorsey, 2006). Characteristics of Substantial Theories As mentioned in the above section, coherence and corresponding theories are collectively called substantial theories. These theories hold that there is more what can be deduced from a sentence by considering the difference between a false statement and true one. One characteristic feature of these theories is that they aim at identifying a property from several statements in order to classify in to either false or true statements. The basic features targeted at from statements are both the actual facts (for instance, ‘the Pentagon is located in Washington DC’) and the mere facts that something might be true (for instance World Trade Center is located in New York). In this respect, both coherence and corresponding theories of truth are concurrence that true statements are rendered true by something real whereas on the other hand, false issues or things are not. Nevertheless, these two theories differ in instances where they are applied to explain what renders true statements to be true. In this regard, corresponding theory, in some cases called realism theory, is referred to. According to Patterson (2003), corresponding theory argue that true statements are rendered true by something objective and real. Generally, characteristic feature is referred to as state of affairs. As such, in respect to corresponding theory of truth, by being objective and real, there is independent occurrence of state of affairs from the capacity of speakers which can give clue of their they are in existence. Based on the fact that correspondence theory stipulates that statements are rendered true only by objective state of affairs, the theory supports the concept of transcendence. In regard to the principle of transcendence, particular statements are rendered true by a specific state of affairs even in cases where the speakers are not in apposition to gauge the truth in the statement. Furthermore, the corresponding theory also supports the concept of bivalence which argues that every statement can either be true or false. For instance, in situations where state of affairs that make particular statements true are obtained, then such statements are true. On the other hand, if they are not, the statements are false. Subsequently, the coherence theory has a characteristic feature of being anti-realist or epistemic. As such, statements are cause to be true by proof and ‘not by an objective state of affairs’. In other words, the statements establish that there is a precise proof relating to the statement. In this regard, coherence theory specifies that statements are true as long as or condition that it is entrenched in s system of one’s beliefs. A case in point to explain coherence theory is intuitionism explanation of a certain subject in which case it is seen as to being limited to the specific subject. Arguments For and Against Corresponding Theory of Truth According to Kuukkanen (2007), the corresponding theory of truth receives a lot of criticism although majority of its opponents do not have valid reasons. However, opponents to this theory argues that there has been no-independent means to put forward such phrases such as ‘really there’. Thus, there is no relation between the theory and the real-life encounters. Conversely, this is critiqued in that, even in situations where reality and theory are compared, there is no hint that truth is entailed in our corresponding relationship that truth among our autonomous world and some theories and beliefs hence, Lehrer (2005), argues that corresponding theory provides and explanation of what the truth is without putting into consideration the epistemic concern in regard to knowing the level of truth in statement. Subsequently, Woller (2003), in their work agues that correspondence theory is only robust in defining what is truth. Reason being the corresponding theory fails to facilitate confronting facts. Thus according to Kuukkanen (2007), corresponding theory does not facilitate in making informed decisions as to whether or not a particular statement could be true or not. On the other hand, the authors argues that correspondence theory of truth lacks proper criteriological order hence the theory cannot serve the purpose of as it is not viable. Therefore, correspondence between reality and beliefs is not applicable in explaining some theories beliefs. As such, Kuukkanen (2007) argues notes the need of having other ways in which an informed decision can be made. Contrary, corresponding theory of truth is favorable in that, it has a characteristic attribute of obviousness. Nevertheless, objections against this theory are that it is too trial, obvious and vacuous as well as being too obscure. Nevertheless, although corresponding theory emphasizes that the notion statements are true if and only if they correspond to reality, it has few limitations; there are few limitations; verifying statements involves subjective experiences to both observations and required interpretations and there are claims (either very or vey small) that cast doubts as to anyone with the necessary equipment. Hence, the coherence theory of truth is proposed. Arguments for and against coherence theory According to Kuukkanen (2007), the coherence theory of truth entails historical, developmental and developmental perspectives based on epistemological point of view. The historical perspective borrows heavily for scientific history. For instance, majority of people all-over the world believe that that the world has existed in more than a billion years ago. This leads to people developing beliefs in respect to certain things. Unlike to correspond theory, it is possible to character the in a least two ways –explanatory unity ad consistency unity. As such, an individual’s belief becomes coherent if it is logically consistent. In order to increase coherence within system of beliefs and besides, the coherence of system of beliefs is reduced by dividing it into subsystems. Besides, it is as well possible to decrease the coherence of belief in order to cater for unexpected. As such, Kuukkanen (2007), three factors that have to be considered in determining systems’ coherence include; consistency, level of inferential connections and cases of anomalies. According to Thagard (2007), coherence theory encompasses two a few advantages which has led to its wide adaption. First coherent theory facilitates both epistemological and metaphysical routes to coherencies. In other words, truth is a property of correlated consistent statements such as science and mathematics and it is as well a systematic coherence of propositions interconnected with beliefs. However, limitations of coherence theory include: possibility of consistent error i.e. what would happen in case other statements are false. On the other hand, coherence theory involves correspondence based on the reason that initial decisions are directly verified. Conclusion In respect to the above discussion, there is a lot of evidence that argument against corresponding theory of truth is to some extent epistemological. Reason being it is difficult to evaluate correspondence between reality and beliefs using correspondence theory truth. As such, making use of coherence theory is much better as it increases coherence by linking it to the truth. On the other hand, coherence theory entails historical perspective of someone’s beliefs. On the other hand, coherence seems to be an inter-link of trustworthiness, truth connection and actual acceptances. References Dorsey, D. (2006). A coherence theory of truth in ethics. Philosophical Studies, 127, 493–523. Kuukkanen, J. M. (2007) Kuhn, the correspondence theory of truth and coherentist epistemology. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci, 38, 555–566. Lehrer, K. (2005). Coherence and the truth connection. Erkenntnis, 63, 413–423. Newman, A. (2002). The Correspondence Theory of Truth: An Essay on the Metaphysics of Predication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thagard, P. (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 74(1), 20-100. Woller, R. (2003). The Correspondence Theory of Truth: An Essay on the Metaphysics of Predication. The Review of Metaphysics, 57(1), 167-168. Young, J. O. (2009). Truth, correspondence and deflationism. Front. Philos. China, 4(4), 563–575. Patterson, D. (2003). What is a correspondence theory of truth? Synthese, 137, 421–444. Read More