Criteria of Truth

[Akita Suggagaki]

In this word of "Post Truth" "Truthiness" and "alternate facts" maybe we need to have a conversation about "Truth" and how to recognize it?

4 common truth theories or criteria:

• The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true.
• The coherence theory of truth — that claims are true if they follow logically and coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).
• The consensus theory of truth — that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true.
• The pragmatic theory of truth — that what is true is what is useful to you, or beneficial for you.

The Four Theories of Truth As a Method for Critical Thinking

How learning and using the four theories of truth can help us become better thinkers, better practitioners, and (hopefully!) better writers.

commoncog.com

Setting religious truth aside, can these be helpful in dealing with our mundane existence. Or have religious beliefs staked too big a claim on how we decide what is true in our world. (I.E., age and shape of the Earth)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In this word of "Post Truth" "Truthiness" and "alternate facts" maybe we need to have a conversation about "Truth" and how to recognize it?

4 common truth theories or criteria:

• The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true.
• The coherence theory of truth — that claims are true if they follow logically and coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).
• The consensus theory of truth — that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true.
• The pragmatic theory of truth — that what is true is what is useful to you, or beneficial for you.

The Four Theories of Truth As a Method for Critical Thinking

How learning and using the four theories of truth can help us become better thinkers, better practitioners, and (hopefully!) better writers.

commoncog.com

Setting religious truth aside, can these be helpful in dealing with our mundane existence. Or have religious beliefs staked too big a claim on how we decide what is true in our world. (I.E., age and shape of the Earth)?

I hate to say it, but it looks like your attempt to do real Philosophy in the Philosophy section isn't going over so well ...

Folks here don't really care much about live epistemological issues.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I hate to say it, but it looks like your attempt to do real Philosophy in the Philosophy section isn't going over so well ...

Folks here don't really care much about live epistemological issues.

O well, I thought I would try.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

O well, I thought I would try.

It is worth it, but many here think they have "God's Truth" already and that THAT is the only 'kind' of truth there is or that is needed. Which then causes an instance shutdown on any further epistemological deliberations ...

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful OP and I'd think that a bit of each of the four epistemic methods for Truth you've cited can be helpful for navigating and evaluating Reality.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is worth it, but many here think they have "God's Truth" already and that THAT is the only 'kind' of truth there is or that is needed. Which then causes an instance shutdown on any further epistemological deliberations ...

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful OP and I'd think that a bit of each of the four epistemic methods for Truth you've cited can be helpful for navigation and evaluating Reality.

Maybe it takes us to the question of "Revelation". How rational can it be? What are it's limits?
Who determines what is or is not? My "revelation" is your foolishness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe it takes us to the question of "Revelation". How rational can it be? What are it's limits?
Who determines what is or is not? My "revelation" is your foolishness.

Those are relevant questions, and it's for this reason that I lean a lot more toward Epistemology in treating with the conceptual environs of "Knowledge" rather than toward the more metaphysically laden concept of "Truth," particularly when the theological term 'revelation' is brought into the mix of conversation.

Where the concept of revelation is concerned, I don't think there is a decisive or comprehensive epistemological treatise we can subscribe to in order to decisively define it, even though, of course, we've seen various Christians theologians break it down to two categories of 'Special' and 'General.'

So, where dealing with revelation is concerned, I'm not sure how much head way we get even by applying each of the four conceptual matrices of Truth you list in the OP: correspondence, coherence, consensus, pragmatic. None of these by themselves seems to offer a fool-proof or fully functional praxis by which to handle something like revelation. I'm more of the mind that we'd have to add in Hermeneutical considerations along with the Semantic theory of truth (a 5th option ?).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Those are relevant questions, and it's for this reason that I lean a lot more toward Epistemology in treating with the conceptual environs of "Knowledge" rather than toward the more metaphysically laden concept of "Truth," particularly when the theological term 'revelation' is brought into the mix of conversation.

Where the concept of revelation is concerned, I don't think there is a decisive or comprehensive epistemological treatise we can subscribe to in order to decisively define it, even though, of course, we've seen various Christians theologians break it down to two categories of 'Special' and 'General.'

So, where dealing with revelation is concerned, I'm not sure how much head way we get even by applying each of the four conceptual matrices of Truth you list in the OP: correspondence, coherence, consensus, pragmatic. None of these by themselves seems to offer a fool-proof or fully functional praxis by which to handle something like revelation. I'm more of the mind that we'd have to add in Hermeneutical considerations along with the Semantic theory of truth (a 5th option ?).

Well you don't fool around. Do you, 2Philovoide? Hermeneutics is something I have been intending to explore.

But I now think "revelation" is a special category. As a society we first need to come to an agreement about what is truth in our practical daily lives. We have lost that shared agreement if there ever was one. There have always been outliers and doubters of everything but I grew up in a world where most people, at least within my circle, agreed on a basic sense of what is right, wrong. News was not questioned as much and science was pretty much respected. Those days are gone. So we find our selves in an epistemological desert, no criteria but what appeals to "me" most.

So I suppose I am searching for my own higher standard for what I believe. AM I looking for criteria for "Practical truth"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well you don't fool around. Do you, 2Philovoide? Hermeneutics is something I have been intending to explore.

Lol! You're right, I don't typically fool around with these things since I take the problems and complications of Philosophy very seriously, especially those dealing with the pros and cons of Epistemology.

But I now think "revelation" is a special category. As a society we first need to come to an agreement about what is truth in our practical daily lives. We have lost that shared agreement if there ever was one. There have always been outliers and doubters of everything but I grew up in a world where most people, at least within my circle, agreed on a basic sense of what is right, wrong. News was not questioned as much and science was pretty much respected. Those days are gone. So we find our selves in an epistemological desert, no criteria but what appeals to "me" most.

Reflecting what more accomplished Christian Philosophers have said, I agree with you that the concept of revelation belongs in a special epistemic category since it partly lies outside of the usual modes of human perception and/or science.

So I suppose I am searching for my own higher standard for what I believe. AM I looking for criteria for "Practical truth"?

And that is the billion dollar existential question, isn't it? One that both of us have, I'm sure, been asking for a long time. I don't have solid answer to it that I can offer you. It's more a matter of grit, spit, wrestling and determination to make the most of exploring the world of ideas and justifications, hoping and praying to find enough evidence by which to believe there really is a rope being thrown to us while we sink in the Pyrrhonic quicksand. Without belaboring what you obviously are also already familiar with, since we're both philosophically inclined, I'll just say as a reminder that we each start by looking at the world and deciding how we're going to attempt to deal with something like Roderick Chisholm's "Problem of the Criterion."

My Apology for having a problem with your Epistemology

As various individuals from different perspectives have tried so hard to let me know, I'm not in with the status quo with how I perceive and evaluate the world. in which we live. Apparently, and according to others, I have a few major deficiencies in my mental logic circuits. This is the...

www.christianforums.com

​

Problem of the Criterion | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Then the game gets underfoot ...

 

[Miles]

In this word of "Post Truth" "Truthiness" and "alternate facts" maybe we need to have a conversation about "Truth" and how to recognize it?

4 common truth theories or criteria:

• The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true.
• The coherence theory of truth — that claims are true if they follow logically and coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).
• The consensus theory of truth — that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true.
• The pragmatic theory of truth — that what is true is what is useful to you, or beneficial for you.

The Four Theories of Truth As a Method for Critical Thinking

How learning and using the four theories of truth can help us become better thinkers, better practitioners, and (hopefully!) better writers.

commoncog.com

Setting religious truth aside, can these be helpful in dealing with our mundane existence. Or have religious beliefs staked too big a claim on how we decide what is true in our world. (I.E., age and shape of the Earth)?

For the sake of this thread, how would you like us to set aside religious truth?

Regarding these four theories, it seems to me that theological truth relies most heavily on coherence theory and consensus theory. Theology deals with metaphysical premises and axioms, while biblical primacy depends on a kind of consensus that the Bible is God's word. Nevertheless, the wisdom contained in scripture has pragmatic value. One can benefit from the teachings of Jesus, for instance, without believing that he is our savior. Correspondence theory, on the other hand, comes into play when one has a relationship with God. When we see him working in our own lives, in the lives of others, and in nature.

With that being said, we frequently deal with the question of truth regardless of whether the truth claims are theological in nature. It can seem like people are always trying to sell us things or convince us that their point of view is the correct one. We often find ourselves adrift in a sea of falsehoods and faulty reasoning. Unless we learn to swim, figuratively speaking, we risk drowning in all the misinformation. As such, observing the world around us, applying logic, looking for areas of consensus, and assessing the practical value of things are all helpful. Both in spiritual and secular matters.

 

[CoreyD]

In this word of "Post Truth" "Truthiness" and "alternate facts" maybe we need to have a conversation about "Truth" and how to recognize it?

My favorite topic.

4 common truth theories or criteria:

• The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true.
• The coherence theory of truth — that claims are true if they follow logically and coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).
• The consensus theory of truth — that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true.
• The pragmatic theory of truth — that what is true is what is useful to you, or beneficial for you.

The Four Theories of Truth As a Method for Critical Thinking

How learning and using the four theories of truth can help us become better thinkers, better practitioners, and (hopefully!) better writers.

commoncog.com

Since all of reality is not observable, the corresponding theory of truth is only relative to one's understanding and knowledge. Not only is this theory very limited, but it contains elements of the subsequent three theories.

Setting religious truth aside, can these be helpful in dealing with our mundane existence.

They can be to a degree. However, this is the reason for the increasing problems, and the roadblocks in solving them.
We can see then, why this "usefulness", is close to being useless, but may temporarily benefit persons in a particular class.

Or have religious beliefs staked too big a claim on how we decide what is true in our world. (I.E., age and shape of the Earth)?

Religious beliefs are not a basis for truth.
How we decide on what is truth should be based on what can be trusted, relied upon; and prove solid.

Does that rule out religious beliefs?
I think most would agree, not any more than it rules out scientific beliefs.

 

[zippy2006]

The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true.

The correspondence theory pertains to reality, not just observable reality.

I think there are two kinds of people: those who know they hold to a correspondence theory of truth, and those who don't yet know they hold to a correspondence theory of truth.

The correspondence theory gets a bad rap because Bertrand Russell mucked it up. That aside, there are no real contenders.

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false;​

(Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV.7)​

 

[Stephen3141]

In this word of "Post Truth" "Truthiness" and "alternate facts" maybe we need to have a conversation about "Truth" and how to recognize it?

4 common truth theories or criteria:

• The correspondence theory of truth — that whatever corresponds to observable reality is true.
• The coherence theory of truth — that claims are true if they follow logically and coherently from a set of axioms (or intermediate propositions).
• The consensus theory of truth — that what is true is what everyone agrees to be true.
• The pragmatic theory of truth — that what is true is what is useful to you, or beneficial for you.

The Four Theories of Truth As a Method for Critical Thinking

How learning and using the four theories of truth can help us become better thinkers, better practitioners, and (hopefully!) better writers.

commoncog.com

Setting religious truth aside, can these be helpful in dealing with our mundane existence. Or have religious beliefs staked too big a claim on how we decide what is true in our world. (I.E., age and shape of the Earth)?

It WOULD be helpful for Christians to consider the classic models of truth,
that human thinkers have come up with.

This is a different topic than a Fundamentalists approach of truth, imparted
to the true believers, in some mystical way, through the Holy Spirit or when
they read the Bible.

Many of the disagreements about "truth" on Christian apologetics sites,
arise from Fundamentalists who have a very mystical (and unprovable)
model of truth.
---------- ----------

Apart from whatever model of truth a person holds to, the biblical
authors DO present a view of our shared reality, and the basic accuracy
of human perceptions, and the ability of human beings to search for truth
(or avoid doing this), and recognizing truth they perceive, or not recognizing
it.

You have to add free will into this discussion, or you cannot get the subtle
model of truth that the biblical authors present.

The "two worlds" model of reality of the ancient philosophers is compatible
with Christianity.

Even non-Christian philosophers like Kant, can agree that all human beings
"perceive" our shared reality in the same way. So, we have a common base
of perceptions to refer to.

North American Christians need to study Epistemology, and the historic
models of truth that philosophers have discussed.

 

[QvQ]

This is a different topic than a Fundamentalists approach of truth, imparted
to the true believers, in some mystical way, through the Holy Spirit or when
they read the Bible.

The Truth is What Is and It is Always the Same

What is --Apples fall down and that is Always the Same.

Ecclesiastes 1: 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

That is the fundamentalist definition of truth according to the Bible.
It is also the fundamental definition of truth in science and philosophy.