This is actually a very complicated topic, so I don't expect you to cover the whole thing. Instead, I want you to think about reasons we have to think one theory is better than another, or even just some reason we might have to think that a particular theory doesn't work, or at least has some kind of problem. I'm looking for deep and detailed reasoning on specific points, not sweeping blanket statements.
Watch this video, taking notes as you go, think deeply about some of the questions that follow the video, and then write up your thought about what reasons you think we have to accept or reject any of these theories. You don't have to cover all three theories, you can even just focus on only one if that works best for you, but whatever you say about this topic must be based on carefully thinking through the arguments for and against any theory you do talk about.
While I'd like you to deeply consider all the following questions, I recognize that you won't have time to do all of them. In fact, you might only be able to deep think one or two of them, in which case you can make your paper about your thinking on just those one or two questions.
1. Consider a room in which there may or may not be a table. Under what circumstances would you reasonably decide that the statement "there is a table in this room" corresponds to reality? Would it be when you see an object that looks the way you think some tables look, feels the way you think tables feel and so on? If there another way a statement can correspond to reality?
2. Suppose you are told there is a table in a room you presently cannot
see into. Would you be able to verify that this statement "corresponded to
reality" without somehow looking into the room?
3. Do we have any reason to think that "this statement corresponds to reality" has any real meaning other than "we have (or will have) a comprehensive set of experiences which, taken all together, are entirely consistent with this statement and cannot be explained any other way"?
4. Do we have any reason to think that "corresponds with reality" isn't just another way of saying "true"?
5. In practical terms, does "explaining" that truth "is" correspondence with reality give us any help at all in figuring out how to tell which statements are true, and which are false?
6. Again suppose you are told there is a table in a room you can't see
into. And also suppose you take a moment to wonder if it is true
that there's a table in that room, or if the statement "there's a table in
that room" corresponds to reality. When you wonder this, are you wondering
if the statement corresponds to a state of affairs existing in some
ultimately unknowable underlying metaphysical true reality, or are you
wondering if you will really have a place to put down your stuff that
isn't the floor?
7. Make sure you get clear on the meaning of the word "cohere", because if
you don't really know what it means for a new belief to cohere with an
existing body of known facts, you won't be able to understand the
coherence theory at all.
8. Suppose we interpret the coherence theory as defining "truth" as
"coherence with a previously established body of facts", where a "fact" is
a belief that has been proven by abduction to be the only reasonable
explanation for a clearly observed body of evidence. If we interpret
coherence theory to include coherence with our best available relevant
evidence, do we still have reason to reject coherence theory as supporting
beliefs that cohere with false belief systems?
9. Either pick your favorite version of pragmatism, or mash them all
together, and think about what pragmatism implies about how we should test
our beliefs. Given what pragmatism says about what "truth" is, what do you
think this implies about what we should do to check if a statement is pragmatically
"true"?
Again, you can use any one, or any number of these questions as your basis for your thinking.
--------------
Now, if none of the above appeal to you, you can take a look at one or
some of the following articles:
Redundancy and related theories * Pluralist theories * Most believed theories * Truth in logic * Truth in mathematics * Semantic theory of truth * Kripke's theory of truth * Revision theory of truth
When you think you have a good understanding of the issues involved in the problem of truth, take some more "think" time do your best to come up with the most logically justifiable answer you can think of. When you have thought about the issue, write a paper explaining the problem, explaining what you think about the problem, and saying exactly why you think what you think. This Site is Proudly Hosted By: WEBster Computing Services
When you think you have a good understanding of the issues involved in the problem of truth, take some more "think" time do your best to come up with the most logically justifiable answer you can think of. When you have thought about the issue, write a paper explaining the problem, explaining what you think about the problem, and saying exactly why you think what you think.
