Introduction to the Philosophy

of the Human Person

Quarter 1 – Module 2.1:
Methods of Philosophizing
 Lesson 2
THEORIES OF TRUTH
 In knowing the truth of falsity of a statement,
we generally use the following Theories of Truth:
• 1. The Correspondence theory of Truth
The basic idea of this 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 corresponds with reality is true while an
idea which does not correspond to reality is false.
For example,
“The sky is blue”
“Pigs have wings”

In general, statements of beliefs, propositions, and

ideas are capable of being true or false.
Eubulides-student of Megara school of philosophy,
“the correspondence theory of truth leaves us in
the lurch when we are confronted with statements
such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying here is
false”.
• Eubulides of Miletus -was a
Greek philosopher of the
Megarian school, a pupil of
Euclid of Megara, and a
contemporary of Aristotle.
He is famous for his logical
paradoxes.
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.
• The Coherence Theory of Truth
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 the 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
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 evaluate
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:
The Pragmatic 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.