Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Full download Philosophy A Text with Readings 12th Edition Manuel Velasquez Solutions Manual all chapter 2024 pdf
Full download Philosophy A Text with Readings 12th Edition Manuel Velasquez Solutions Manual all chapter 2024 pdf
https://testbankfan.com/product/philosophy-a-text-with-
readings-12th-edition-manuel-velasquez-test-bank/
https://testbankfan.com/product/philosophy-a-text-with-
readings-13th-edition-velasquez-test-bank/
https://testbankfan.com/product/philosophy-a-text-with-
readings-11th-edition-velasquez-test-bank/
https://testbankfan.com/product/ethics-for-life-a-text-with-
readings-6th-edition-boss-solutions-manual/
College Writing Skills with Readings 9th Edition Langan
Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/college-writing-skills-with-
readings-9th-edition-langan-solutions-manual/
https://testbankfan.com/product/classical-and-contemporary-
sociological-theory-text-and-readings-3rd-edition-appelrouth-
test-bank/
https://testbankfan.com/product/transnational-management-text-
cases-and-readings-in-cross-border-management-7th-edition-
bartlett-test-bank/
https://testbankfan.com/product/voices-of-wisdom-a-multicultural-
philosophy-reader-8th-edition-kessler-test-bank/
https://testbankfan.com/product/big-questions-a-short-
introduction-to-philosophy-9th-edition-solomon-test-bank/
Velasquez, Philosophy
CHAPTER 6: Truth
Learning objectives:
justification
In the history of philosophy, there are three ways of looking at truth. The pragmatic theory says
that our beliefs are true when they get us what we want. The coherence theory says that a belief
is true when it fits with our other beliefs and meanings. The correspondence theory says that a
belief is true when it corresponds with what is “out there” in the world.
knowledge also requires that one’s belief be justified by the evidence or by reasons, and that it
also be true. To understand knowledge then requires understanding justification and truth.
Challenges to the justified true belief account of knowledge were famously made by Edmund
Gettier. His examples show that in some instances one can have justified true belief and yet this
falls short of being knowledge. In at least some cases, then, knowledge is more than justified true
belief.
Justification
Justification and truth are not necessarily the same; something could be justified and not true, for
example. But they are related, as justification should point to truth. The concept “justified” is a
normative one, with some philosophers holding that people have an obligation not to believe
When are we justified in believing something? That depends on the kind of belief in question.
Propositions can be categorized as a prior or empirical. They can also be categorized as basic or
non-basic.
my belief that I have a pain in my toe. Nonbasic beliefs are inferred from basic beliefs and
Foundationalism
The difference between basic and nonbasic beliefs is important. Foundationalists believe that the
justification of all nonbasic beliefs depends on our basic beliefs; that basic beliefs are the
foundation of nonbasic ones. Descartes, for example, held that the most basic belief is “I think,
therefore I am”, and that this could be used to justify all nonbasic beliefs such as the belief that I
am thinking and the belief that God exists. Other philosophers have argued that basic beliefs are
Other philosophers have objected to the idea of basic beliefs. Wilfrid Sellars argued that all our
beliefs depend on other beliefs drawn from our culture and society, and so there are no basic
beliefs.
Coherentism
Philosophers like Sellars argue that although there are no basic beliefs our beliefs do not have to
rest on unjustified beliefs. Instead, our beliefs can justify each other in a kind of circle of mutual
support. The view is that our beliefs are justified if they cohere with each other. Beliefs that are
part of our knowledge would then be part of a web or system of beliefs that reinforce one
another.
Winkins statements about the Dutroux Inquiry Commissionseems to imply that the truth is
relative to the individuals perceiving a given issue. They thus imply that there is no single truth.
Finally, if true, they suggest that two different people holding contrary beliefs about something
Correspondence Theory
The most popular theory of truth is the correspondence theory, which holds that truth is the
Russell holds that a belief is true when it corresponds with a fact, and that an adequate theory of
truth must allow for the possibility that there will be some falsehoods. Russell holds that when
we believe something we relate things, and if the relationship among the terms in a statement
corresponds to the relationship between them in the world then the statement is true. But a
correspondence theory need not be as complex as this; it could simply hold that beliefs are made
true by the way things are in the real world. J. L. Austin, for example, offered a correspondence
theory that rejected Russell’s account. Austin says that we can use a language to talk to each
other only if there are rules that connect our words to the things we are talking about. Statements
refer to states of affairs in the real world, and we have rules that tell us what they refer to.
Finally, when we make a statement by uttering a sentence, the statement is true if it refers to the
But this theory has problems. It assumes that we can determine when our beliefs match an
external world, but this is not obvious. It is also not clear what a “fact” is; to which fact is a true
proposition supposed to correspond? It seems that facts themselves are true propositions so facts
and truths are one and the same, and hence no genuine correspondence is possible. But
correspondence theorists argue that there are significant differences between facts and
propositions, such that even if facts can only be identified by true propositions this does not
mean that facts just are true propositions. Similarly, it is not clear what is meant by the word
“corresponds’. And there is also the problem of negative statements; to what fact does the
Alfred Tarski developed an interesting and important version of the correspondence theory that
does not refer to facts or correspondence. Tarski stipulates that “For any language L, any
sentence in language L, and any statement that states the conditions that made S true in language
L: the sentence S in language L is true if and only if p.” The brilliamce of Tarski’s definition is
that it makes no mention or assumption of correspondence. Some have argued that this definition
seems circular, and that he is using the concept of truth to define truth. However, Tarski’s
account tells us in one language (English) what truth means in another language (e.g. Italian), so
although he makes use of the notion of truth in English language to define what p is he uses p to
Coherence Theory
According to the coherence theory, a belief is true if it coheres with other beliefs that we regard
as true. A main proponent of this view is Brand Blanshard; this view is also adopted by eastern
philosophers, such as Shankara, while several members of the Yogacara school of Buddhism
But is the systemic coherence of a group of beliefs a guarantee of its truth? Moreover, such an
approach to truth seems to rely on correspondence. After all, if a judgment is conherent, it must
cohere with another judgment—but what of the first judgment? If it is first, it cannot cohere with
anything, and so its truth must be verified by determining whether it reports a fact.
Pragmatic Theory
The pragmatists hold that a statement is true if people can use it to achieve results that satisfy
their interests.
Pragmatism
The classic version of the pragmatic theory of truth was put forward by William James in his
Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. According to James, the truth of a
Modern Pragmatism
Contemporary pragmatists approach truth differently from William James, arguing that we
should forget about defining truth and get on with living in open-minded, democratic
communities. Richard Rorty, for example, holds that truth is whatever has passed a society’s
“procedures of justification”. The modern pragmatists wants us to hold that when someone says
something is true they are merely commending it as something that it is good to believes.
Criticisms of Pragmatism
yesterday might be false today. Although pragmatists hold that their approach to epistemology is
more useful than its rivals any claim about usefulness seems to rely on subjective evaluation.
Indeed, couldn’t we say that an account of truth was more useful when “true” did not simply
mean “useful?
Does Truth Matter?
Which theory of truth you accept makes a difference in how you understand truth. For example,
the coherence and pragmatic theories of truth both reject the notion of an objective truth. This
implies a relativism about truth. According to Richard Rorty, relativism means that statements
are true or false according to a group’s standards of justification. Thus, while this does not imply
that all claims are equally true, it does imply that no matter what they claim, if a statement passes
a group’s muster, then it is true – even if another group views the claim as false or biased. Thus,
without an objective idea of truth, it’s difficult to make sense of inter-group criticism.
Can we reconcile these three theories? Could we say that each tells us just part of what the truth
is? We could hold that the correspondence theory applies to the empirical realm, the coherence
theory to the realm of logical, necessary, or systemic truth, and the pragmatic approach to truth
Deflating Truth
But maybe we should reject all of these theories as truth doesn’t refer to anything important at
all; that when we say that a statement is true we are only saying what the statement itself says.
• To explain the strengths and weaknesses of the instrumental, realist, and conceptual
relativist views of science and their relation to the pragmatic, correspondence, and
How do the three theories of truth relate to science? What does it mean to say that the standard
Many scientists would say that the standard view of matter is true. But what does it mean to say
that theoretical entities like quarks and electrons exist? It might be that the theory is true because
it enables us to make successful predictions. But does this prove that the view is true? Maybe we
just assume that this theory is true because this assumption allows us to use it to predict what will
happen. This is an instrumentalist view of scientific theories, which is similar to the pragmatic
theory of truth.
The realist view is a version of the correspondence theory of truth. According to this view
scientific theories are literally true or false when they correspond to fail to correspond with the
way things really are in the world. The aim of science on this view is to discover what the
objective structure of the universe is; to provide true explanations of the world around us.
A third view of science shares features with the coherence theory of truth. The proponents of this
view, influenced by the historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, think that a
scientific theory that is true is merely a theory that a community or group of scientists accepts.
On this view, the beliefs that make up the conceptual framework of the group in question are true
by definition. Thus, when a finding in science fits into or coheres with this framework, it is also
judged to be true. Observations made by this group do not absolutely ground the theories they
justify because they are “theory laden,” i.e., they are shaped by theoretical presuppositions
themselves and are thus not independent of the scientists’ conceptual framework. Of course,
another group of scientists, in a different historical era, might not accept the theories of a
different, previous era. That is, claims about the universe made by the first group might not
cohere with the framework of the second group. Because there is no access to a reality
independent of the conceptual frameworks the groups of scientists employ, there is no way to
determine which theory is right. Kuhn calls the significant changes in scientific theories
Conceptual relativists reject the realist and the instrumentalist views because they believe that
these views mistakenly hold that we can check the real world independently of our theories. But,
say the relativists, observations are always theory laden, and so never can be independently
checked.
Learning objectives:
We often need to interpret the words of others around us. But when are such interpretations true?
How can a believer know if her interpretation of the Bible is correct? We might say, with
Thomas Aquinas, that a text could have many spiritual interpretations that could all be true, with
the Church deciding which are true and which are false. But this doesn’t really solve the
Martin Luther rejected this idea, holding that there was only one correct interpretation, which
The idea of an unambiguous language that could be interpreted in only one way was first
suggested by Gottfried Leibniz. Leibniz never completed his formulation of such a language, but
Ludwig Wittgenstein claimed to have provided the basics for one in his Tractatus-Logico-
Philosophicus. Wittgenstein claimed that reality consists of facts, and the propositions of an ideal
language will provide pictures of these facts; a proposition will thus be true when it has the same
kind of structure as the fact that it pictures. Wittgenstein thus embraced a correspondence theory
of truth. But as he got older he believed that his whole approach to language was wrong; he
argued that it was a mistake to believe that language can serve a single purpose and express a
single meaning. We must instead acknowledge that language can be used for many different
purposes or “games”. This view has clear implications for hermeneutics, including the idea that
there is no clear language and the idea that the meaning of words is not fixed.
Gadamer argued that when a person tries to interpret someone else’s words she must rely on her
own experiences and culture. We can try to understand and correct our prejudices, but we can
never completely overcome them. As such, people in different cultures interpret texts differently,
and so a text can has as many true meanings as there are cultures. However, texts are not static;
rather, we have to have a dialogue with the text, claimed Gadamer. As such, he seems to have a
Kant
6.6: Readings