PHIL 201
WHAT IS TRUTH? TRANSCRIPT
S1:
Hello, and welcome to another presentation for PHIL 201: Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas.
I’m Dr. Mark Foreman.
I want to continue our discussion of epistemology by looking at the elements of our definition of
knowledge. Remember, we defined knowledge as “justified true belief.” Now I am looking at
each of those elements. We already talked about belief and examined where beliefs come from in
our last discussion. Here I want to discuss truth. What do we mean when we say a proposition is
true? What is truth? There are three basic theories of truth. Let’s look at them.
S2:
Our first theory for determining whether a proposition is true is called the correspondence
theory. It simply states that a proposition is true if it corresponds with the facts of reality. Let’s
take a proposition, for example, my car is blue. That proposition is true according to this theory
if, in fact, my car really is blue. If my car is another color (say, red), then the proposition “my car
is blue” is, of course, false. So what makes the proposition true or false is that it corresponds
with the actual facts of reality.
This is the oldest theory out there. Plato and Aristotle both held this theory. In fact, there was a
rather famous saying by Aristotle that expresses this theory, which goes:
To say that “what is” is not or that “what is not” is, is false; but to say “what is” is and
“what is not” is not is true.
There are two strengths to this theory. First of all, it accords with our most basic intuitions about
truth. It is simply what most of us mean when we say a proposition is true or false. It corresponds
with what is actually real.
A second strength of this theory is that it links truth with reality, which provides us with a
reliable check on the truthfulness of propositions. We have criteria for determining whether a
proposition is true or not. We simply check with reality to see if a particular proposition
accurately corresponds with the facts. If it corresponds with the facts, then the proposition is true.
If it doesn’t, then the proposition is false.
S3:
While the correspondence theory is a very old theory and a very popular theory, it has come
under several criticisms. Let’s look at a few.
Some say we may not see reality equally or accurately. We may see it differently. Therefore, how
can we say that truth corresponds with reality? Let’s use an example. Suppose you and I go
outside. We both look up and see something fly across the sky way up high, to where we can
barely make it out. I say, “I think it’s a plane.” And you say, “I think it’s a bird.” (We will
Page 1 of 5
PHIL 201
assume, by the way, that those are the only two options. We are not going to assume that
Superman is flying across the sky here.) The question is who is right? There is a good possibility
that we will never know which of us is right. But what does that have to do with the truth claims
of our propositions?
The point is this, and it’s a very important point: there is an important difference between a
proposition being true and knowing that a proposition is true. We may never know if I was the
one that was right or if you were the one that was right. But one thing we can know is that one of
those propositions is true and one is false (assuming of course that those are the only two
possibilities or options there). Just because you don’t know a proposition is true doesn’t mean
that the proposition isn’t true, that it doesn’t correspond with reality. We just simply may not
know it.
Another criticism concerns non-factual claims. Some people will make claims that really do not
involve facts. For example, a person might say something like this: “I saw a movie last night, and
I thought it was really good.” That’s not really a factual claim. That’s the person’s opinion about
the movie. One thing we recognize is that truth applies only to factual claims. It doesn’t apply to
other kinds of claims, like subjective value claims. So we really don’t have to worry about those
when it comes to our definition of knowledge.
Another criticism is that the idea of correspondence is kind of a vague idea. What exactly do we
mean that a proposition corresponds to reality? I understand there is a certain amount of
vagueness here, but I think we just need to clarify it. What we mean is that propositions are
really truth bearers. They bear the truth within them. They represent the truth in content so that
we can place epistemologically what we see metaphysically. That’s what we mean by
correspondence.
Finally, some people argue that the correspondence theory doesn’t account for the liar’s paradox.
What is the liar’s paradox? It deals with the universal claim “I always lie.” Think about that. If I
make that statement, “I always lie,” and if we ask whether the statement is true or false, then if
the statement is true—“I always lie”—that means I’m lying right there. Which means the
statement isn’t true. It’s false. So if it’s true, then it’s false. And if it’s false, then it’s true. It’s a
paradox. The way we answer this criticism is to recognize that a paradox doesn’t count as a
legitimate truth claim at all. They are just paradoxes, and they don’t count for anything because
they don’t mean anything. They aren’t making any claims at all—they are contradictions, and
contradictions can’t make claims. So we don’t really have to worry about that as a criticism for
the correspondence theory of truth.
I think the correspondence theory holds up pretty well to the criticisms concerning it, but it’s not
the only theory out there. Let’s look at another theory.
S4:
A second theory about what makes a proposition true is called the coherence theory. It basically
states that a proposition is true if it coheres with other true propositions. In other words, what
Page 2 of 5
PHIL 201
makes a proposition true is if it fits together will all these other propositions that we have already
accepted as true.
There is a very important point here that this theory points out: we should reject as false
propositions that do not cohere with established truths. If we have a collection of beliefs that we
know are true, and a propositions comes across that goes against that established system, we
know there is a good chance that the proposition is going to be false.
There are two strengths with the coherence theory. First, it does help to establish truths in an area
where we don’t know all the facts, and sometimes that happens. Maybe you have a collection of
facts, like in science for example, but we don’t know everything. A new idea comes across that
we are not sure about, but it fits in with the collected facts we do know. So, therefore, we accept
that as being true because it fits in with the collection of facts.
A second strength is that many systems and non-factual areas work this way: ethics, politics,
math. They all seem to work with this idea that, if it fits in well with our theory, then, in fact, that
probably makes it true. For example, value claims often cohere together with other sets of values,
and that’s what we mean here. So there are some good strengths to this theory.
S5:
However, there are some serious problems with the coherence theory—some criticisms of it.
First of all, while coherence is a necessary condition for truth—in other words, I don’t think
something is true if it doesn’t cohere with established truths—it’s not a sufficient condition for
truth. It’s simply not enough. Consistency is not adequate to determine truth. Just because
something coheres and fits within a system doesn’t make it true; it simply means it doesn’t
contradict. But that’s not necessarily the same thing as being true.
Also, how does one judge the truthfulness of the systems themselves? Take, for example, a belief
that we Christians have: the incarnation of God—that God became a man. That fits in well with
Christianity, but it doesn’t fit in with Buddhism. How do I know which of the two systems is
correct? The coherence theory doesn’t help me with that.
Another problem is the question, “How does one start a system going?” If the way to determine
whether or not a proposition is true is if it fits within a system, well what if I’m just starting off?
I have no system with which to compare the value of that first proposition.
Finally, I think a big problem with the coherence theory is that it’s not linked at all with the real
world. It’s only linked with systems of beliefs. We don’t really know if it corresponds with the
world or not because we are not using our correspondence theory here. We are only using
systems of beliefs. Since we have no way of really testing the systems themselves, it doesn’t
really tell us about the real world.
So I think the coherence theory is inadequate as a theory for truth. I think, again, that coherence
is important in having a proposition being true. But I don’t think it is adequate in determining
whether the proposition is true or not.
Page 3 of 5
PHIL 201
S6:
Our third theory is called the pragmatic theory. It basically says that a proposition is true if it is
successful in explaining phenomena or in achieving desired consequences. This theory was
developed by the philosopher William James, who is famous for saying, “Truth is expedience.”
Or, basically, truth is what works. Now, again, there is some value in this theory of truth.
It is often used, for example, in explaining scientific theories (for example: quantum mechanics
or cosmological speculation). In quantum mechanics, for example, there is a theory called
“Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.” This has to do with how things work on a subatomic level.
We can’t really see the subatomic level, so we come up with this idea of how things work as a
theory. It seems to be successful in explaining things. And because it is successful in explaining
things, we say Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is true.
Also, this area of truth is appealed to in areas of morality, politics, or religion. For example, some
people say that if religion gives me meaning, then it’s true. It’s successful in giving me purpose
and meaning, so that religion is true for me.
Finally, this recognizes the relativity of truth claims. Sometimes different perspectives are going
to look at things differently and come out with different truth claims. And sometimes there are
degrees of truth. Some can be more or less true.
S7:
However, I think the pragmatic theory is the most problematic theory of truth. First of all, there
simply is no logical connection between what works and what is true. Just because something
works or is successful in some way doesn’t make it true. Under this conception, slavery was the
true form of economics because it was successful. But most of us see a real problem with that
kind of thinking.
Also, we need to establish criteria for determining exactly what we mean by “successful.” The
pragmatic theory holds that, if something is successful, it is true. But what does it mean for
something to be successful? For example, take a character like Mugwump. Mugwump, for
example, may feel better because of a particular belief, but what does that have to do with the
belief being true? Let’s suppose Mugwump believes in astrology because it gives his life
meaning. Does that mean astrology is true because it gives his life meaning? What does it mean
for something to be successful? This needs further exploration before we can accept it as a
criteria for determining what makes something true.
And finally, this theory makes truth very tentative and changeable. What was true yesterday is
not true today if it doesn’t work today. Many people feel like this is the death knell for the
pragmatic theory, and it has very serious problems with it.
Of these three theories, I think the one that works the best is the correspondence theory. I think
coherence is important for truth—if something doesn’t cohere, then that is a sign of falsehood—
Page 4 of 5
PHIL 201
but it’s not sufficient for truth. Finally, as far as the pragmatic theory is concerned, I don’t think it
has to do so much with what’s true; it has more to do with what works.
Page 5 of 5
