Assignment on Theories of Truth

Submitted To
Dr. Jasim Uddin

Professor

Department of Philosophy

North South University

Submitted By:
Md. Moshiur Rahman

ID#1311003630

Section: 9

North South University

Submission Date: 18th February, 2017

 Abstract

Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a
topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in
philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.

It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way. Instead, this
essay will concentrate on the main themes in the study of truth in the contemporary philosophical
literature. It will attempt to survey the key problems and theories of current interest, and show
how they relate to one-another. A number of other entries investigate many of these topics in
greater depth. Generally, discussion of the principal arguments is left to them. The goal of this
essay is only to provide an overview of the current Theories and also lastly we would
recommend which theory has the most acceptability and less complexity.

Truth basically means the consistency and harmony and the problem of truth is one of the central
problems of logic and epistemology. Truth has two different aspects. One is formal and other is
material. Formal truth is not concerned about any necessary reference to any kind of facts. It just
needs to have consistency and harmony within itself. On the other hand, a judgment is is
materially true when, besides being formally true, it is consistent with the facts.

In short, formal truth relies upon the validity of the statement. Whereas, material truth is really
concerned about the truth. Here some of the questions remain. Like- what are the marks of a true
judgment which distinguish it from the false one? Or , what is the test or criterion of truth?

Luckily, there are five different criteria. That are-

1. The test of authority

2. The test of self-evidence

3. The test of coherence

4. The test of correspondence

5. The pragmatic test of truth.

The test of Authority-

It is often related to the authoritarian source of knowledge. We cant experience the past or
personally repeat every experience, so we must trust the specialists, they accept, though not
blindly, the discoveries they record for us. The key thing with knowledge from authority is that it
can be double-checked and the work of scientists and historians is continually being double-
checked as other workers in the same field (even some time us in the classroom) repeat their
experiments or investigations.

By authoritarianism, we mean sourcing knowledge from reliable person, is the reliability in

mastery or competence honesty? Whichever, there is every tendency of slip of tongue or pen
from the authority which necessitates verification since there is, no matter how minute, a level of
imperfection in humanity if at all the authority is honesty enough to tell naked truth. However,
we must accept knowledge from authority to some extents because we cannot witness to prove
the past, not can we prove all the statements and laws written down by authorities for that life is
short. For instance, if we are to investigate all statements and laws in pure and natural sciences, it
will take more than our lifetime. Yet, knowledge from authority should be accepted with
skepticism and verified if possible.

The three established conditions of knowledge (belief, evidence and truth) cannot be harmonized
practically when it comes to authoritarianism. There may be belief and assumption of truth, but
evidence would not be there. In fact, if knowledge is justified with proof upon its supposed truth
and belief, then, its no longer a product of authoritarianism since it is not accepted blindly
without evidence. The principle of freedom is also necessary without which the pursuit of truth
would be impossible.

The test of Self-evidence-

According to this test, a judgment is true, because its truth is apparent, self evident or obvious;
no reasoning or reference to the facts is necessary.
There are a number of ways that something can be self-evident. In ordinary language, we say that
something obvious is self-evident. Philosophically, however, further distinctions must be made.
In modern philosophy, something is self-evident when understanding what it means immediately
results in knowing that it is true. In Aristotelian philosophy, another meaning of self-evident was
used. There are four different ways of understanding self evidence logical, indubitable,
undeniable and impractical. Something may be self-evident to one person, but not to another
person. For example, I know that 1525+2515=4040. But I figured that our using a calculator.
Some individuals are so skilled at math that they know the answer simply by understanding the
question. But I understand the question as well. So the difference is not one of understanding, but
one of degree of understanding. The math expert simply understands implications that I require a
calculator to do.

Something may also be self-evident in a number of ways. First, it may be logically self-evident.
Denying the statement causes a logical error. So if the box is black and red is not black then the
box must not be black. The last statement is self-evident given the previous statements. Second,
something may be indubitable. That is, it cannot be doubted. Third, something may be
undeniable. Fourth, something may be practically self-evident.

The test of coherence-

The coherence theory of truth is another form of the theories of truth. According to this theory, a
judgment is true if it coheres with our beliefs within a system. It is generally accepted by the
idealists. But there is a difference between logical positivists and idealists. Coherence theorists
hold that truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or with a set of propositions held to be
true, not just an arbitrary collection of propositions

The coherence theory also admits degrees of truth. Because a judgment which is consistent and
coheres with the all comprehensive system of knowledge is absolutely true. But the problem is
that we cannot attain such type of absolute truth. We know that an absolute truth is an ideal truth.
A judgment becomes more true if it coheres with the whole system of knowledge. So, coherence
admits degrees of truth. Bradley, an absolutist idealist therefore, views that judgments are
partially true and partially false. His view is that truth must exhibit the mark of expansion and
all-inclusiveness. He through this saying admits degrees of truth.

From the ordinary view point it can be said that individual statements lead to degrees of truth in
comparison to the whole system of truth. So, a judgment may be partially true or partially false.
That is why all human errors may be said to be partial truths. Hence, it can be said that coherence
theory of truth admits degrees of truth.

The test of correspondence-

The correspondence theory is the oldest among the theories of truth. It is found in Aristotles
Metaphysics. He formulates the theory as such: to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that
is not, is true. This formulation can be symbolically represented in modern logic as p is true
if and only if p. The correspondence theory holds that there is a direct correspondence between
judgment and reality. As for instance, grass is green is a judgment. But the question is, whether
the judgment is true or false. Correspondence theory holds that there is a direct correspondence
between grass and green. It is not the case that grass is not green. That is why it can be held that
the judgment grass is green is true.

It is a common sense theory of truth. Common sense holds that objects exist independently of
knowledge in the external world. Our sense organs directly perceive that grass is green. In this
context our sense organs do not depend on previous knowledge of things which idealism
advocates. Therefore, this theory of truth is known as direct realism or naive realism. Common
sense holds that our mind comes in direct contact with the objects. As for instance, people
perceive-The Sun revolves around the Earth. It is indeed correct in perception. But in reality it
is not correct. On the other hand, the Earth revolves around the Sun is a true judgment.
Therefore, naive realists view cannot be accepted which asserts a direct correspondence between
judgment and reality.

The pragmatic test of truth-

Now you have some idea about the concept of coherence theory of truth. Let us know about the
pragmatic theory of truth.
Pragmatism asserts that usefulness or workability is the test of truth. An idea is true if it works. If
it leads to fruitful consequence, it is true. On the other hand, if it leads to unfruitful consequence,
it will be false. As for instance, fire burns. This judgment is true if fire burns. On the other hand
the above mentioned judgment will be false if fire does not burn in experience. Therefore, the
test of truth is pragmatic usefulness, successful activity, fruitful consequence or utility.

The truth of ideas depends on verifiability. Also, the question of truth is primarily a practical one.
Our success in practical life depends on our ability to predict and control the course of events in
the world. We want to discover truth. The test of truth depends on our ability to predict and
control the course of events in the world. Predictions which are formally valid, but practically
inapplicable are only truth-claims. Truth claims are not considered as truths. So, predictions
become true only when it turns to success. Here we find a distinction between positive value of
successful prediction and negative value of unsuccessful prediction.

Critical remarks

The test of authority is mainly based on the authoritarian aspect of knowledge. It is important
because somehow, we need to surrender ourselves to an authority figure like history books,
scriptures, prestigious and elderly people for knowledge and truth. Otherwise we cannot establish
certain things. But, sometimes even the authority can be biased, mistaken or misleading. That is
why we cannot totally rely upon the authoritarian view. As authority arrests our views in a
certain area and obstacles our broad thinking, it is found to be contradictory with the philosophy.

Self-evidence, if rightly understood, gives the basic taste of truth and it is the foundation of all
truth seeking. But, it is sometimes classed as an intuition. The propositions we make may not
always be true. Like, it was once believed that the earth is flat and it revolves around the sun.
But, later we came to know that it is not true.

From the ordinary view point it can be said that individual statements lead to degrees of truth in
comparison to the whole system of truth. So, a judgment may be partially true or partially false.
That is why all human errors may be said to be partial truths. Hence, it can be said that coherence
theory of truth admits degrees of truth. The coherence theory of truth is also not satisfactory.
Because this theory of truth leads to relativism in the sense that it admits different degrees of
truth. It can be said that truth cannot be varying. If it is, then telling lies by someone will be true.
And as a result we fail to distinguish between truth and falsity in our practical life.

One good thing about the correspondence theory is that it is simple and appeals to common
sense. Like- In order to prove that It is raining today is true, according to the correspondence
theory, all one must do is look out the window and verify that it is in fact raining. This theory is
also not satisfactory. Here also the correspondence between knowledge and its object is
confusing. Because we do not see in what sense we can speak of a correspondence between the
two. It can be said that there is no subjective content of the mind that might correspond to the
object.

The pragmatic theory has been criticized by critics. According to them, pragmatic theory reduces
the true to be useful and obliterates the distinction between truth and error. It is a matter of
common experience that what is not useful and what is false may sometimes be useful for certain
purposes. Again the pragmatic theory makes truth appear as subjective. If the test of truth is
utility or usefulness then the truth will depend on peoples interest. That is why, it is clear that
pragmatic theory cannot provide us objective test of truth. So, it can be said that pragmatic
theory is not satisfactory.

Conclusion

Based on the facts above, we fail to determine a particular theory or test to be totally relying.
Each of them has its drawbacks and also the good sides. It can be said that, not one test can alone
establish the truth. But, if one theory needs to be chosen, it should be the correspondence
theory. It is a simple theory and we can verify through our sense perceptions. Also, it follows the
idea of philosophy that is to observe and think.
References-

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

2. http://www.brentcunningham.org/?p=584

3. http://www.toktalk.net/2008/11/09/three-different-types-of-truth/

4. http://www.slideshare.net/michaelmarenico/philosophy-about-truth