To Trust or Not To Trust

【Abstract】For centuries， philosophers have been dedicating to discovering what is the “truth”， for which they came out with enormous ideas and theories. Two most popular theories about truth are the coherence and correspondence theories of truth. By contrasting these two theories’ merits， the former seems to be a closer theory towards the truth.

【Key words】trust； theory； objective

【作者簡介】Heming Huang， Watkinson School.

The coherence theory of truth states that any true proposition requires its connection with some specified set of propositions. The coherence theory of truth is like a spider web that is made of your beliefs， they all fit together to form a coherent whole. When there is a belief that does not cohere with the rest is like a fly falls into the web. These beliefs that fit in the web are considered true， whereas others that do not are wrong. A proposition is true only within a domain of discourse， is all which is needed to make the truth of a proposition. The fundamental intuition is that a body of beliefs makes a specific statement true or 1 within the context of those beliefs.

The correspondence theory of truth states that something is true if and only if it bears a specific relation to a specific part of reality， which has to be true. People who think this theory is correct would say things like， a proposition is true when it corresponds to the facts， usually understanding “facts” as external， mind-independent， objective states of affairs. The fundamental intuition is that it is the world which makes some description of it true and other description 1.

One problem for the correspondence theory of truth is that it contradicts itself when we are confronted with statements such as “I am not telling the truth” or “What I say here is wrong”. These are statements that they are capable of being true or 1. However， if they are true because they correspond with reality， they are 1； and if they are 1 because they fail to correspond with reality， they must be true. Thus， no matter what we say about the truth or 1hood of these statements， we immediately contradict ourselves.

British philosopher George Berkeley stated that when people are judging something whether or not is true with the correspondence theory of truth， they are actually come out based on many coherence ideas. For example， if there is a cube in front of you， you will automatically know that it is a cube. According to the correspondence theory of truth， you know it is a cube because how it appears in front of your eyes. However， the only thing that you perceived is an object， with sixes square faces. You know it is a cube from some coherence ideas inside your mind， which is the definition of a cube， and then you can conclude that it is a cube. It is not possible to make judgment directly from object to theory， but only from many coherence ideas inside people’s mind.

According to Berkeley， Since “the most fierce and intense degree of heat is a very great pain” and “the subject of the greatest heat can be perceived by sense”， heat is something， “a material substance with the sensible qualities inhering in it”. However “your material substance is a senseless thing”， and a great heat cannot exist in it. The mind cannot step outside itself to examine whether the world is the same as the mind perceives it. According to the statement that a very violent and painful heat can’t exist outside the mind， it does not exist if it can not be “sensed”. If a great heat does not exist， we will feel the same temperature if we put our hand into a boiling water and ice water at the same time we can not identify the differences. This definitely cannot be true according to the fact. By using the sense as an example， Berkeley is able to point out how the correspondent theory of truth contradicts itself.

Thomas Kuhn is an American physicist， historian， and philosopher， he published his book called The Structure of Scientific Revolution. In this book， he came up with the concept of paradigm， which designates what the members of a certain scientific community have in common is a single element of a whole. For example， if you believe in the scientific theory of Geocentric， you would automatically think that Heliocentric theory is 1 because it contradicts what you know about the Sun and Earth. Actually， they are both right base on two paradigms.

It could be criticized that it is not an objective theory. However， this will collapse to relativism， which is a doctrine that the view of truth and 1 is not absolute. In another words， every coin has two sides.

The coherence theory of truth is a more valid theory of truth in comparison to the correspondence theory of truth. When there comes to be determined whether if it’s the truth or not， there will be many coherence ideas come into your mind in order to help you make the final decision. This is what the truth really is inside people’s mind.