What Is Correspondence Theory Truly True?
Philosophy can be considered a search of truth and not an attainment of it. But, how do we know something is truly "true", when someone makes an assertion or proposition? We must test that against what we already know to be true. The search for what is true, some would argue is impossible, however philosophers continue to develop ideas within the realm of Epistemology. Due to the nature and sheer magnitude of this undertaking, there are inevitability strengths, as well as, weaknesses to all theories including the main topic of this paper: Correspondence Theory. The strengths of Correspondence Theory are: a reliance on empirical evidence, testing of beliefs, and avoiding hypothetical situations, while it's weakness's include: the ability to accurately test systemic evidence in the real world, inability to accurately correspond to things in the world, and the inability to semantically label things in a manner that can't be misconstrued.
…show more content…
Correspondence Theory can be considered one of the primary forms of testing a belief for truth.
In essence, it is a test of where ones' beliefs and the actual facts diverge or converge (Roark, 1982). Correspondence Theory is considered one of the most popular theories of truth that traces its roots back to Plato in Aristotle's Metaphysics (Dowden, n.d.). This paper aims to explain both the Weaknesses and Strengths of Correspondence theory, and hopefully decide if this is a good way to explore the existence and nature of truth. Along the way, we should also be able to explore the differences between false and genuine
knowledge.
In looking at Correspondence Theory, several issues with its validity as a test of truth occur. Firstly, the experiences that we rely on to verify claims are subjective and thus not a completely foolproof way of testing a proposition or belief (Pecorino, 2000). An example of this would be if a person were to attempt to assert their ice cream was the coldest thing on earth, even if they had never traveled to the Arctic where temperatures drop much further below freezing. Without sufficient experience, there is no way to test this claim. Additionally, since a person can only truly know their own ideas and experiences, it is difficult to objectively test those ideas themselves (Roark, 1982). A further weakness of Correspondence Theory is explained by humans being unable to disassociate from the environmental influences that form their beliefs. Secondly, Correspondence theory has a difficult time testing systemic evidence against the real world (Roark, 1982). Words sometimes mean different things to different people and therefore, we have a tough time properly labeling things in a manner that will have a definite and universal meaning. Lastly, one of the main mistakes of those that argued the Correspondence Theory is "facts are the true statements themselves and that facts aren't named by them"(Dowden, n.d., para. 36). In a way this describes the inability of any language to properly label things in a manner that couldn't later be confused.
On the positive side, Correspondence Theory appears to have many more attributes than faults. One of its main strengths lies in the fact that Correspondence Theory avoids imaginary or hypothetical instances. For example, if one was to say that "all dragons breathe fire", the correspondence theory wouldn't work since dragons don't exist. Another large strength of this useful type of analysis, is that correspondence theory relies on empirical evidence in order to decide what is true. Correspondence Theory becomes an excellent exercise in testing beliefs by comparing them to other beliefs that are known to be true (Oxford Reference, 2005). Therefore, only something true can be used to tell if something else is also true. For this reason, individuals in the scientific community favor correspondence theory as it relies on the scientific process in order to ascertain if a theory can be moved to a law or formula.
The coherence theory is a competing theory whose aim is discovering the answer to what is true. In its most simple explanation, coherence theory says that "every true statement, insofar as it is true, describes its subject in the totality of its relationship with all other things" (coherence theory, n.d., para. 1). In other words, true statement must reasonable associate with other true statements. Overall, the consistency that coherence theory demonstrates is among its most admirable attribute (Young, 2016). This has profound implications in science and technology where different individuals are working towards a common goal and must share findings with one another. Often times, on person's research will depend on the accuracy of another's.
Famous philosophers of Correspondence Theory held that facts where mind-dependent and thus must be considered separate from true statements (Dowden, n.d.). This sheds light onto what can be considered genuine knowledge and what is false knowledge. Genuine knowledge is independent of mind and can be held true through a verification process (Pecorino, 2000).
Correspondence Theory, while it does fall short in some instances, is one of the closest indicators of what truth actually is and how to know if something is in fact true. It can be said that this theory, proposed long ago, has branched into other forms of thought such as the coherence theory and others. While we still don't have a perfect way to test the ultimate truth of something, utilizing the correspondence theory, we have, and will continue to use it in order to solve real world problems.
Correspondence Theory can be considered one of the primary forms of testing a belief for truth.
In essence, it is a test of where ones' beliefs and the actual facts diverge or converge (Roark, 1982). Correspondence Theory is considered one of the most popular theories of truth that traces its roots back to Plato in Aristotle's Metaphysics (Dowden, n.d.). This paper aims to explain both the Weaknesses and Strengths of Correspondence theory, and hopefully decide if this is a good way to explore the existence and nature of truth. Along the way, we should also be able to explore the differences between false and genuine
knowledge.
In looking at Correspondence Theory, several issues with its validity as a test of truth occur. Firstly, the experiences that we rely on to verify claims are subjective and thus not a completely foolproof way of testing a proposition or belief (Pecorino, 2000). An example of this would be if a person were to attempt to assert their ice cream was the coldest thing on earth, even if they had never traveled to the Arctic where temperatures drop much further below freezing. Without sufficient experience, there is no way to test this claim. Additionally, since a person can only truly know their own ideas and experiences, it is difficult to objectively test those ideas themselves (Roark, 1982). A further weakness of Correspondence Theory is explained by humans being unable to disassociate from the environmental influences that form their beliefs. Secondly, Correspondence theory has a difficult time testing systemic evidence against the real world (Roark, 1982). Words sometimes mean different things to different people and therefore, we have a tough time properly labeling things in a manner that will have a definite and universal meaning. Lastly, one of the main mistakes of those that argued the Correspondence Theory is "facts are the true statements themselves and that facts aren't named by them"(Dowden, n.d., para. 36). In a way this describes the inability of any language to properly label things in a manner that couldn't later be confused.
On the positive side, Correspondence Theory appears to have many more attributes than faults. One of its main strengths lies in the fact that Correspondence Theory avoids imaginary or hypothetical instances. For example, if one was to say that "all dragons breathe fire", the correspondence theory wouldn't work since dragons don't exist. Another large strength of this useful type of analysis, is that correspondence theory relies on empirical evidence in order to decide what is true. Correspondence Theory becomes an excellent exercise in testing beliefs by comparing them to other beliefs that are known to be true (Oxford Reference, 2005). Therefore, only something true can be used to tell if something else is also true. For this reason, individuals in the scientific community favor correspondence theory as it relies on the scientific process in order to ascertain if a theory can be moved to a law or formula.
The coherence theory is a competing theory whose aim is discovering the answer to what is true. In its most simple explanation, coherence theory says that "every true statement, insofar as it is true, describes its subject in the totality of its relationship with all other things" (coherence theory, n.d., para. 1). In other words, true statement must reasonable associate with other true statements. Overall, the consistency that coherence theory demonstrates is among its most admirable attribute (Young, 2016). This has profound implications in science and technology where different individuals are working towards a common goal and must share findings with one another. Often times, on person's research will depend on the accuracy of another's.
Famous philosophers of Correspondence Theory held that facts where mind-dependent and thus must be considered separate from true statements (Dowden, n.d.). This sheds light onto what can be considered genuine knowledge and what is false knowledge. Genuine knowledge is independent of mind and can be held true through a verification process (Pecorino, 2000).
Correspondence Theory, while it does fall short in some instances, is one of the closest indicators of what truth actually is and how to know if something is in fact true. It can be said that this theory, proposed long ago, has branched into other forms of thought such as the coherence theory and others. While we still don't have a perfect way to test the ultimate truth of something, utilizing the correspondence theory, we have, and will continue to use it in order to solve real world problems.