Coherence as Correspondance

It struck me in class on Monday, that despite the seemingly large divide between the two theories, they are not entirely contradictory.

The correspondence theory states that a claim is true if it corresponds to reality, a theory that has the added benefit of being rather intuitive and commonsensical.

The coherence theory states that a claim is true if it does not contradict, or works well with, previously posited statements. As more claims are added, the complexity of the system of statements increases and so too does the likelihood that these claims are true.

It seems that if we combine the two, we get an adequate definition of truth, and the best way to ascertain truthfulness. Professor Johnson reminded us that the method for ascertaining truthfulness is a separate issue than the definition of truth, which is what we were dealing with. So if truth is that which corresponds to reality, than the best way to determine if a statement corresponds with reality is to compare it to previously posited statements that are thought to be true (Sense experience, after all, is notoriously unreliable). As more claims are compared, the complexity will grow and so too will the likelihood that they correspond to reality.

Question: (1)Does this synthesis do justice to each of the theories? (2) Do you think this synthesis works and makes sense?