User:Evarenon/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 4/Truth

Truth's objectivity (Caroline and Muyao)
Although “truth” seems to imply “objectivity”, objectivity is more an impossible ideal as it is said in reading 2. However, the epistemic objectivity stays an essential attribute of truth because without it, it is not possible to estimate/analyse/understand in a neutral and true way a fact, a situation or even a theory. Objectivity is much easier in certain fields such as the ones dealing deal with objects and properties whose existence is independent of all human perception (this is the definition of objectivity).

The correspondence theory of truth (Teo and Mia)
It is the view that truth exists in relation to reality. It claims that true beliefs and statements relate to the actual state of affairs and it dates from the time of classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It claims that humans can gain knowledge of the world through of observation and experimental refinement. This theory of truth is associated with the realist school of thought within philosophy. Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

One of the main proponents of the correspondence theory of truth was the philosopher Bertrand Russell. His conception of truth can be expressed by the following: "a belief is true when there is a corresponding fact, and is false when there is no corresponding fact" (Russell, 1906). In Russell's view, the truth of a belief depends only the objects of the belief, which exist in external reality. Thus, truth is seen as entirely independent of the mind. Mia (discuss • contribs)

As postmodernism becomes more prevalent, the principles of correspondence are increasingly called into question. According to a postmodernist approach, facts of experience are conceptualized in our minds according to a variety of organizing principles and by using judgement, which is dependent on historical, cultural and linguistic factors (Danaher, 2002). Because we necessarily form concepts from experience, and because objective reality itself does not contain those concepts, our beliefs cannot directly correspond to reality. However, Danaher argues that correspondence can be understood as a correspondence to a certain conceptualization of reality, rather than to objective reality itself. This does not imply that there are no universal facts of reality, only that we cannot view these facts outside of our own conceptualizations, which vary among individuals. The conceptualization on which we base correspondence can be freely chosen, but there exists no innate knowledge about which basis for correspondence we should choose. Such a view thus bears some similarity to the coherence theory of truth. Mia (discuss • contribs)

Truth's universality (Ollie and Thalia)
According to the correspondence theory, something is true based on it corresponding to a fact, something that exists in the world. A fact is taken to be something consisting of universals or particulars, hence truth may not always have universality according to these theory. It may be a fact that 'I am eating dinner' however, this is not a universal, it is not the case in all possible worlds that 'I am eating dinner'. According to the theory, it would still be a truth to claim 'Ollie is eating dinner' given this corresponds to the fact of me eating dinner, yet this would not be a universal. Therefore, it may be concluded that universality is not an essential attribute of truth. Olliedixon148 (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In order to be universal, laws must fulfil certain requirements, namely that they must have “an unrestricted range in space and time”, be invariant when translated over space and time, not carry any coordinates of either space or time and that they must not be specific to any spatio-temporal locations. Within the sciences and in relation to natural laws, these conditions of universality by which to determine truth or lawfulness have previously been considered to be accurate. Whilst sufficient in the discussion of laws formulated with an absolute space and time in mind, in a more flexible and subsequently more complex setting these conditions must be revised. Here to, as with the correspondence theory, a comprehensive universality in all its aspects is not considered to be an essential attribute of truth or lawfulness. Tmlweigel (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Belief and truth (Amber and Sunni)
Belief can be argued as an attribute of truth, as truth can in some cases be constructed from certain beliefs. This claim will be explored by examining the placebo effect, religious beliefs and the relationship between knowledge and truth.

Religious believers perceive their religious belief to mirror the truth. The religious beliefs of others are hence considered false (if they contradict the ‘true’ belief). However, in the case of religion one cannot gather quantitive evidence to prove or disprove a certain ‘truth’ claim, thus one cannot reach objective truth. Brecht argues in her paper that factual evidence is not really important to believers as belief is something one feels but cannot justify using factual evidence. Thus, in religion truth is subjective and individualistic rather than objective and universal. Sunnivaminsaas (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The consequences of understanding truth from this perspective are that the truth can be defined as anything - making it a very broad definition of the word. This takes a holistic approach to viewing truth, not limiting it to what can be physically proven. However, a limitation of viewing truth through belief is that it can lose its concrete meaning and its utility in distinguishing between what is true and what is false. Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Beliefs and biases in truth (Lucas, Apara and Henri)
Based on the pragmatist theory, truth is an uncontested belief i.e. a belief that is no longer questioned becomes a truth. For this to happen it must cause no conflict nor should it contradict another belief, ‘truth is satisfactory to believe’ (Pierce and James). As existentialists believe, truth is something you should act out, not merely hold, because to act out is to believe. Humans are prone to biases by nature, and in the quest of finding the truth they even metamorphose it to reflect their own beliefs, a pitfall which even researchers are not immune to.

Furthermore postmodernism, a theory which even denies the notion of truth and considers science an reason as myths and tales, was finally rejected. In fact it pointed out that fondamentally and philosophically no one can have access to truth because one depends on induction to have access to any knowledge. Hence men don't even know if truth exists. However people need to consider beliefs as truths to live, and even more to live in a social system. They need to believe in science. Because men experienced they only need beliefs and biased truth to survive, biased truth has become true (pragmatism).

The coherence theory of truth (Wen and Julie)

In the coherence theory, a true proposition is one that coheres to a specific set of propositions; it typically contrasts directly with the correspondence theory in that it assumes that conditions for truth are not found within any sort of objective disparate reality, but rather that the truth of a belief is indicated by its coherence with other beliefs. Coherentism hence involves the rejection of the principles of bivalence and transcendence (that every proposition is only true or false, and that a proposition can be true even if it cannot be known to be true respectively).

A coherence approach can be particularly practical in situations in which the object of focus is not easily verifiable through our traditional means of verification--i.e., empirical study and observation--such as in psychiatry. (Kendler, 2015)

Importantly, though, coherence is only an essential attribute insofar as one subscribes to the coherentist notion of truth. A major issue with coherence theory is the fact that even when things seem completely coherent, it may be untrue, as had been demonstrated many times throughout the history of science. Therefore it has a limit, and can only bring us closer to an approximative truth, rather than absolute truth as explanatory coherence increases. ~

Leewenyi (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) (Wen and Julie)