The Four Theories of Truth as a Method for Critical Thinking
The article outlines four theories of truth: correspondence, coherence, consensus, and pragmatic, emphasizing their roles in critical thinking and the importance of personal experience in evaluating claims.
Read original article
The article discusses four theories of truth that can aid in critical thinking. The correspondence theory posits that truth is derived from observable reality, emphasizing the importance of personal experience in evaluating claims, though it may not always represent the whole picture. The coherence theory suggests that truth is based on logical consistency, highlighting the need to assess claims against logical fallacies. The consensus theory asserts that truth emerges from widespread agreement, often relying on expert consensus to guide understanding. Lastly, the pragmatic theory defines truth by its usefulness and effectiveness for the individual, focusing on practical outcomes rather than absolute truths. This theory is particularly relevant in areas where consensus is lacking, such as nutrition and fitness, where personal experiences can vary widely. The article concludes by encouraging readers to evaluate claims based on their practical success and applicability to their own lives, suggesting that personal validation can serve as a form of truth.
Related
Nobody knows what's going on
Misinformation's impact on beliefs, reliance on unreliable sources, and human tendency to trust comforting information are discussed. Difficulty in discerning truth and consequences of widespread misinformation are highlighted.
Feelings over Facts: Conspiracy Theories and the Internet Novel
The article explores the impact of conspiracy theories on politics and society, emphasizing the need to understand their emotional roots. Authors advocate for listening to concerns and avoiding dismissal, highlighting their role in expressing power dynamics.
Usefulness Grounds Truth
The article explores how usefulness underpins truth, emphasizing practicality over abstract debates. It urges focusing on beneficial information to uncover practical truths in various fields, advocating for real-world impact over theoretical notions.
Feelings over Facts: Conspiracy Theories and the Internet Novel
The article explores the rise of conspiracy theories in modern culture, their impact on various aspects, and the importance of understanding emotions behind them. It advocates for empathy and emotional comprehension over factual debates.
How to begin living more rationally
Embracing rationality involves adopting the Scout Mindset, Nuanced Thinking, Falsification, and Charitable Thinking. These principles enhance decision-making, promote open-mindedness, evidence-based beliefs, and constructive dialogue, fostering clearer thinking and productive interactions.
11 comments<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Major_theories>
And of course the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has an extensive article on Truth:
<https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/>
(As noted at the link, Truth was substantially revised on Thursday, 16 August, 2018, which absolutely tickles me.)
But I'm left wondering whether there is much of a practical application for distinguishing the four methods? For example, are there circumstances where you might reasonably be expected to use the consensus method, but you'd be better off using the pragmatic method?
Another thing it leaves on the table is the actual consensus used -- is it possible to judge the functionality or utility of a given consensus vs. another?
There's a lot to think through here and I wanted more. But it's a great start -- a much better start than I expected.
But this is as real as an actor performing the role of a judge. You can make videos of both, and for spectators this will look like there is no fundamental distinction that can be pointed to. And yet, we all understand that they're fundamental differences with significant differences in outcomes.
And the consensus and pragmatic theories are not about truth, they are about consensus and usefulness, which are different things.
An example of the first category might be a parent deciding it's better for their kids to believe in Santa Claus. An example of the second is to create a society on some maxim that's rendered true by group-consensus, "everyone should have an equal say."
There is no coherent, constant theory of truth for any language which has the word "truth." This was proven by Tarki ages ago.
The reason is the Liar's paradox. It blows up any such theory of truth. For example, the correspondence theory of truth is blown up with this version of the liar sentence:
"This sentence does not correspond to reality".
Ok, does that sentence correspond with reality, or not? :-)
This is a genuine problem, which nobody has ever found a solution for. See the Stanford encyclopedia article on the liar paradox.
The good news is that we don't need to define truth at all. Just like we don't have to define "point" or "line" in geometry, or "set" in mathematics. These are, as it were, "axiomatic" concepts, which we use to define everything else with. They cannot be defined in terms of anything more basic or simpler, because they are the most basic, simple concepts we have.
The "truth" is a figment of mind, of which "integrity" is a measure of consistency between the two.
From this one may say that any "truth" (you say so) that is somehow not consistent with Truth (as reducible by our perceptions, then sense of logic, then best motive, etc.) exists only in the void of lie. Anyone may tell themselves anything, until it is in conflict with feedback from existential reality.
A mistaken interpretation of the first model of truth given, is the distinction that Truth is True whether or not a human perceives it.
Philosophy then wonders if our human minds have the ability to conceive it (true truth).
Related
Nobody knows what's going on
Misinformation's impact on beliefs, reliance on unreliable sources, and human tendency to trust comforting information are discussed. Difficulty in discerning truth and consequences of widespread misinformation are highlighted.
Feelings over Facts: Conspiracy Theories and the Internet Novel
The article explores the impact of conspiracy theories on politics and society, emphasizing the need to understand their emotional roots. Authors advocate for listening to concerns and avoiding dismissal, highlighting their role in expressing power dynamics.
Usefulness Grounds Truth
The article explores how usefulness underpins truth, emphasizing practicality over abstract debates. It urges focusing on beneficial information to uncover practical truths in various fields, advocating for real-world impact over theoretical notions.
Feelings over Facts: Conspiracy Theories and the Internet Novel
The article explores the rise of conspiracy theories in modern culture, their impact on various aspects, and the importance of understanding emotions behind them. It advocates for empathy and emotional comprehension over factual debates.
How to begin living more rationally
Embracing rationality involves adopting the Scout Mindset, Nuanced Thinking, Falsification, and Charitable Thinking. These principles enhance decision-making, promote open-mindedness, evidence-based beliefs, and constructive dialogue, fostering clearer thinking and productive interactions.