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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that a sort of synthesis is the best solution to handling both theories. My blog post was vaguely similar-- I feel that as wonderful as our human perceptions and sensations are, they may ultimately be misleading at times.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that if a claim corresponds to what is experienced (you say reality, correspondence theory says 'the way the world is'), the claim can not only be verified as true with recognition of the other, but can be (or needs to be?) further verified with previous relevant claims that correspond with this other? Also, this system of claims which another claim can cohere to, as just noted, must correspond to the other to be true.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you claim that the likelihood of claims corresponding to reality increases with the increase of the number of claims in a self-supporting system of claims?
I think that as I spoke of likelihood, it is a matter of probability. The probability that a statement is true grows with the number of previous claims with which the current statement coheres. Take 2 claims: claim A and claim B. If claim A works well with, and does not contradict, thirty previously accepted claims; and Claim B has only ten other claims to which it cogently coheres, then it is more likely that Claim A is true.
ReplyDelete