THEORIES OF

TRUTH
In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we
generally use the following Theories of Truth:

1. The Correspondence theory of Truth:

The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that
what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way
things actually are based on the facts. It argues that an
idea that correspond with reality is true while an idea,
which does not correspond to reality is false.
For example, if I say, “The sky is blue” then I
looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue, then
my statement is true. On the other hand, if I say,
“Pigs have wings” and then I checked a pig and it
does not have wings, then my statement is false.
In general, statements of beliefs, propositions,
and ideas are capable being true or false.
 However, according the Eubulides, a student of the
Megara school of philosophy, “the correspondence theory of
truth leaves us in the lurch when 14 we are confronted with
statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying here is
false.” These are statements and therefore, are capable of
being true or false. But if they are true because they
correspond with reality, then any preceding statement or
proposition must be false.
Conversely, if these statements are false because they
do not agree with reality, then any preceding statement or
proposition must be true. Thus, no matter what we say
about the truth or falsehood of these statements, we
immediately contradict ourselves.”
 This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory
of Truth is wrong or useless and, to be perfectly honest, it
is difficult to give up such an intuitively obvious idea that
truth must match reality. Nevertheless, the above
criticisms should indicate that it probably is not a
comprehensive explanation of the nature of truth.

Arguably, it is a fair description of what truth should

be, but it may not be an adequate description of how truth
actually “works” in human minds and social situations
(Cline, 2007).
 Austin Cline argues, it is important to note here that
“truth” is not a property of “facts.” This may seem odd
at first, but a distinction must be made between facts
and beliefs. A fact is some set of circumstances in the
world while a belief is an opinion about what those
facts are. A fact cannot be either true or false because
it simply the way the world is. A belief, however, is
capable of being true or false because it may or may
not accurately describe the world.
2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:
It has already been established that the Correspondence
Theory assumes that a belief is true when we are able to
confirm it with reality. In other words, by simply checking if the
statement or belief agrees with the way things really are, we
can know the truth. However, as Austin Cline argues, this
manner of determining the truth is rather odd and simplistic.

Cline said that a belief can be an inaccurate description of

reality that may also fit in with a larger, complex system of
further inaccurate descriptions of reality. Thus, by relying on
the Correspondence Theory, that inaccurate belief will still be
called “truth” even though it does not actually describe actual
state of things. So how do we resolve this problem?
In order to know the truth of a statement, it must be tested as part of
a larger set of ideas. Statements cannot be sufficiently evaluated in
isolation. For example, if you pick up a ball and drop it accidentally,
the action cannot be simply explained by our belief in the law of
gravity which can be verified but also by a host of other factors that
may have something to do with the incident, such as the accuracy
of our visual perception.

For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger

system of complex ideas, then one might conclude that the
statement is “true”. By 15 testing this set of complex ideas against
reality, then one can ascertain whether the statement is “true” or
“false”. Consequently, by using this method, we establish that the
statement “coheres” with the larger system. In a sense, the
Coherence Theory is similar to the Correspondence Theory since
both evaluates statements based on their agreement with reality.
The difference lies in the method where the former involves a larger
system while the latter relies on a single evidence of fact.
 As a result, Coherence Theories have often been rejected
for lacking justification in their application to other areas of
truth, especially in statements or claims about the natural
world, empirical data in general, and assertions about practical
matters of psychology and society, especially when they are
used without support from the other major theories of truth.
Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist
philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and the British
philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover, this method had its
resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of logical
positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.
3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:
  A pragmatist can consider something
to be true without needing to confirm that
it is universally true. For example, if
humans commonly perceive the
ocean as beautiful then the ocean is
beautiful.
 The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a
belief/statement is true if it has a useful (pragmatic)
application in the world. If it does not, then it is not true.

 In addition, we can know whether a belief/statement is

true by examining the consequence of holding or
accepting the statement/belief to be true.

For example, there are some people who think that there
are “ghosts” or “vampires” because they find it useful in
explaining unusual phenomena and in dealing with fears
(Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word
“truth”, we define it as that which is most useful to us.
 However, there are objections against this theory of
truth. For Austin Cline, truth that is based on what works is
very ambiguous. What happens when a belief works in
one sense but fails in another? Suppose a belief that one
will succeed may give a person the psychological strength
needed to accomplish a great deal but in the end he fails
in his ultimate goal. Was his belief “true”?

In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it

is more appropriate to call it useful rather than “true”. A
belief that is useful is not necessarily true and in normal
conversations, people do not typically use the word “true”
to mean “useful”.
 To illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my
spouse is faithful” does not at all mean the same as “It is true
that my spouse is faithful.” Granted that true beliefs are also
usually the ones that are useful, but it is not usually the case.
As Nietzsche argued, sometimes untruth may be more useful
than truth.

In sum, we can know if statements/beliefs are true if we

look at each statement/belief and determine if they
correspond to facts, cohere with the rules of the system and
result into useful application.
 It must be noted, however, that Philosophers
“continue to argue with each other on which among
these three general methods is the correct one or
one that works for all kinds of statement or beliefs”
(Mabaquiao, 59).
Nevertheless, it is not necessary to subscribe to
only one method and consider it to work for
everyone. Perhaps it is better to use any of the
three methods that is appropriate for any given
statement or belief that is being examined.