PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH (Article)
The subjects like truth, god, right/wrong are purely PHILOSOPHICAL but there are a few theories which define these. Check out the work done in this field . With heavy dosage of PHILOSOPHY.
The three theories of truth (pragmatic, correspondence, and coherence) all deal with different methods of analyzing and evaluating ideas and beliefs to determine whether or not it is a true idea or belief. Consequently these theories have ideas that object and argue against the basic principles of the theories themselves.
THE ACTUAL ARTICLE STARTS HERE
The pragmatic theory of truth states that a belief is true if it works, if it is expedient, and if holding the belief leads to good consequences. It is also said that this theory provides practical value and success for beliefs. Truth or an idea is something we can use as actions for future knowledge. The pragmatic theory should lead to success when these truths and ideas are implemented in the world.
The pragmatic theory of truth explains that ideas are either true or false. Ideas that lead to frustration and confusion are false ideas. Ideas that are progressive, gives satisfaction, and leads you somewhere are true ideas. Pragmatists believe that, "Truth happens to an idea"(p.194), some other circumstances occur to make the truth within the idea more evident. Pragmatists also believe that just by having a belief, it is much more likely the belief will be true, especially if it leads to good consequences.
i.e. A person believes that they are the smartest
person ever. This would be a true belief for
that person because it makes them feel good
about themselves; they work hard because
they have high expectations of themselves;
and this belief could give them the confidence
and courage to accomplish goals they would
not have been able to otherwise.
The pragmatic theory of truth is used as a problem-solving function of beliefs. If a real problem leads a belief or statement to the successful solution of that particular problem, then the belief or statement is true. (Theories of Truth)
THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
The correspondence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it matches up with the way that the world works. Bertrand Russell argued against the pragmatic theory of truth, emphasizing that truths and ideas need to be made true by facts and not on comfort and personal satisfaction.
The correspondence theory of truth argues that a "true" belief is one that has been deemed so by evidence and facts that correspond with the way that we see the world around us. (p.201) In a sense, a true idea is an agreement between ideas, facts, and other established beliefs. If a statement corresponds to the facts, truth then becomes a property of that statement. (Epistemology: Kant and Truth)
i.e. A person is walking and sees an apple core
on the ground. The person either thinks that
someone threw it on the ground because they
were too lazy to put it in the garbage or the
person left it there so the birds and squirrels
could eat it. This would be a true belief
because it makes sense with the way the
world is.
COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
The coherence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it matches up with other beliefs or statements that we already have. The new belief requires a strong connection in order to cohere with the existing beliefs. There is absence of contradiction between these beliefs; the elements must come together and flow consistently. A belief or statement is true if it is supported mutually by a set of existing coherent beliefs. (Theories of Truth)
i.e. If the president of a bank notices that some
money is missing and is unable to be
accounted for. He does not know what
happened to the money, so the president
analyzes the information that he does know
and connects it to other information until he
figures out the truth of what happened to the
money.
Nature and reality are two elements that are said to be coherent. Given this, if we make our ideas and beliefs more and more coherent, we will get closer to understanding the truth of the world.
Along with the definitions of these different theories of truths, come arguments against them. Each theory has its own objections to why that particular theory does not work and should therefore be rejected.
The pragmatic theory of truth states that a belief or idea is true solely based on whether it works. But whom exactly does it have to work for? A belief or idea that might be useful and successful for one person, would believe it to be true; while that same idea or belief might be false for another person who it does not provide usefulness and success. If one group of people believes an idea to be true while another group believes it to be false, which should it be?
There is contradiction within this theory of truth. If a person tells a child that a monster will get them if they go into the street, does not make it true because that person is protecting the child from getting hurt. It is true that the belief leads to good consequences, however, that itself does not make it a true belief.
The correspondence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it corresponds with the way that the world is. A big objection to this theory is that correspondence cannot be used as criterion. (Epistemology: Kant and Theories of Truth) How does anyone really know whether something is really factual? We believe certain ideas to be true based on facts and evidence because we do not know anything apart from our knowledge. Which really is not justified since we do not know whether our perceptions and knowledge about an idea or belief are adequate.
The coherence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it is coherent with other existing beliefs. It also assumes that nature is coherent, but what if it was in fact not coherent with any element? Then there would be absolutely no way that we would be able to understand the truth of the world.
An objection to this theory is the ongoing "advance in knowledge". The world's knowledge is constantly advancing to new levels, and this new knowledge might not cohere with that of old knowledge. In some fields of study there is always going to be new knowledge that upsets the old knowledge. Just because this new knowledge does not cohere with the old knowledge does not mean that we should disregard it. The old knowledge might not fit together with the new because the old knowledge might not be as coherent as it once originally seemed.
Initial beliefs are not true based on their relation to other beliefs. When our initial beliefs are formed, our other beliefs are nonexistent. We do not have those other beliefs to compare to the initial beliefs.
All three of these theories of truth have their faults. Not one of these theories is entirely an absolute guide to deciding whether or not an idea is truth. It then becomes a matter of choosing the lesser of the evils. Which theory of truth causes the acceptance of more beliefs to be true?
I think that the correspondence theory of truth fits those criteria the best. Truth is based on facts and evidence rather than on personal satisfaction and comfort. It also is not required for the belief to cohere with a set of existing beliefs to be true. It makes more sense that a belief would be true if it corresponds with the way the world is.
If truth is defined as conformity with fact and agreement with reality, then it seems to be difficult to disregard the correspondence theory because the basis of it's principle are facts and our realistic view of the way the world works and how those facts fit into it.
The three theories of truth (pragmatic, correspondence, and coherence) all deal with different methods of analyzing and evaluating ideas and beliefs to determine whether or not it is a true idea or belief. Consequently these theories have ideas that object and argue against the basic principles of the theories themselves.
THE ACTUAL ARTICLE STARTS HERE
The pragmatic theory of truth states that a belief is true if it works, if it is expedient, and if holding the belief leads to good consequences. It is also said that this theory provides practical value and success for beliefs. Truth or an idea is something we can use as actions for future knowledge. The pragmatic theory should lead to success when these truths and ideas are implemented in the world.
The pragmatic theory of truth explains that ideas are either true or false. Ideas that lead to frustration and confusion are false ideas. Ideas that are progressive, gives satisfaction, and leads you somewhere are true ideas. Pragmatists believe that, "Truth happens to an idea"(p.194), some other circumstances occur to make the truth within the idea more evident. Pragmatists also believe that just by having a belief, it is much more likely the belief will be true, especially if it leads to good consequences.
i.e. A person believes that they are the smartest
person ever. This would be a true belief for
that person because it makes them feel good
about themselves; they work hard because
they have high expectations of themselves;
and this belief could give them the confidence
and courage to accomplish goals they would
not have been able to otherwise.
The pragmatic theory of truth is used as a problem-solving function of beliefs. If a real problem leads a belief or statement to the successful solution of that particular problem, then the belief or statement is true. (Theories of Truth)
THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
The correspondence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it matches up with the way that the world works. Bertrand Russell argued against the pragmatic theory of truth, emphasizing that truths and ideas need to be made true by facts and not on comfort and personal satisfaction.
The correspondence theory of truth argues that a "true" belief is one that has been deemed so by evidence and facts that correspond with the way that we see the world around us. (p.201) In a sense, a true idea is an agreement between ideas, facts, and other established beliefs. If a statement corresponds to the facts, truth then becomes a property of that statement. (Epistemology: Kant and Truth)
i.e. A person is walking and sees an apple core
on the ground. The person either thinks that
someone threw it on the ground because they
were too lazy to put it in the garbage or the
person left it there so the birds and squirrels
could eat it. This would be a true belief
because it makes sense with the way the
world is.
COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
The coherence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it matches up with other beliefs or statements that we already have. The new belief requires a strong connection in order to cohere with the existing beliefs. There is absence of contradiction between these beliefs; the elements must come together and flow consistently. A belief or statement is true if it is supported mutually by a set of existing coherent beliefs. (Theories of Truth)
i.e. If the president of a bank notices that some
money is missing and is unable to be
accounted for. He does not know what
happened to the money, so the president
analyzes the information that he does know
and connects it to other information until he
figures out the truth of what happened to the
money.
Nature and reality are two elements that are said to be coherent. Given this, if we make our ideas and beliefs more and more coherent, we will get closer to understanding the truth of the world.
Along with the definitions of these different theories of truths, come arguments against them. Each theory has its own objections to why that particular theory does not work and should therefore be rejected.
The pragmatic theory of truth states that a belief or idea is true solely based on whether it works. But whom exactly does it have to work for? A belief or idea that might be useful and successful for one person, would believe it to be true; while that same idea or belief might be false for another person who it does not provide usefulness and success. If one group of people believes an idea to be true while another group believes it to be false, which should it be?
There is contradiction within this theory of truth. If a person tells a child that a monster will get them if they go into the street, does not make it true because that person is protecting the child from getting hurt. It is true that the belief leads to good consequences, however, that itself does not make it a true belief.
The correspondence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it corresponds with the way that the world is. A big objection to this theory is that correspondence cannot be used as criterion. (Epistemology: Kant and Theories of Truth) How does anyone really know whether something is really factual? We believe certain ideas to be true based on facts and evidence because we do not know anything apart from our knowledge. Which really is not justified since we do not know whether our perceptions and knowledge about an idea or belief are adequate.
The coherence theory of truth states that a belief is true if it is coherent with other existing beliefs. It also assumes that nature is coherent, but what if it was in fact not coherent with any element? Then there would be absolutely no way that we would be able to understand the truth of the world.
An objection to this theory is the ongoing "advance in knowledge". The world's knowledge is constantly advancing to new levels, and this new knowledge might not cohere with that of old knowledge. In some fields of study there is always going to be new knowledge that upsets the old knowledge. Just because this new knowledge does not cohere with the old knowledge does not mean that we should disregard it. The old knowledge might not fit together with the new because the old knowledge might not be as coherent as it once originally seemed.
Initial beliefs are not true based on their relation to other beliefs. When our initial beliefs are formed, our other beliefs are nonexistent. We do not have those other beliefs to compare to the initial beliefs.
All three of these theories of truth have their faults. Not one of these theories is entirely an absolute guide to deciding whether or not an idea is truth. It then becomes a matter of choosing the lesser of the evils. Which theory of truth causes the acceptance of more beliefs to be true?
I think that the correspondence theory of truth fits those criteria the best. Truth is based on facts and evidence rather than on personal satisfaction and comfort. It also is not required for the belief to cohere with a set of existing beliefs to be true. It makes more sense that a belief would be true if it corresponds with the way the world is.
If truth is defined as conformity with fact and agreement with reality, then it seems to be difficult to disregard the correspondence theory because the basis of it's principle are facts and our realistic view of the way the world works and how those facts fit into it.
posted by mandelia at 1:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home