My objective in this paper is to discuss the credibility of the pragmatic theory of truth in contest to the coherence theory. Although some scholars support different components of the coherence theory, I will discuss the issues that delegitimizes the entire premise of this theory. This paper will provide an outline of the coherence and the pragmatic theory of truth through a condensed analysis of works/research conducted from different philosophers. Subsequently, I plan to argue against the coherence theory by providing examples and reasons that invalidates this ideology as an acceptable form of evaluating “truth”. The premise of this paper is to highlight indisputable evidence that supports the pragmatic theory of truth, meanwhile providing
…show more content…
The coherence theory centrally touches on the justification of a belief, in that any belief is reliant on its consistency to a coherent set of beliefs that it pertains to. Alcoff includes in her work A Case for Coherence that ‘A belief is justified to the extent to which the belief-set of which it is a member is coherent’ (Alcoff, 161). This theory concludes that every belief is verified by its coherence to other beliefs pertaining to the same system. However, the system of beliefs to which a belief is contained can be either an internal or external (Alcoff). Critics of the coherence theory question the validity of a belief simply due to its assortment into a larger system of beliefs. The primary difficulty associated with the coherence theory is the verifying process to conclude a belief as truth. In order to understand the verification process in the coherence theory, it is important to understand simply what the word “coherence” refers to within this context. Therefore, the next section of this paper will break down the word “coherence” and why the coherence theory is a flawed perception of truth without …show more content…
Alcoff implies that coherence can be either seen a consistency of a belief with respect to other beliefs in a set, or mutual entailment which refers to a reversible binary relation amongst beliefs in a set. The obvious complications that Alcoff points out with coherence is that “the latter requirement…renders most actual belief sets incoherent and therefore unjustified, while the problem with the former is that it would force us into the position of accepting questionable or even fictional systems as justified beliefs if they only have internal consistency” (Alcoff, 161). The basic challenge associated with “coherence” in this context is that the requirements allows for either strong inconsistencies among universally believed sets due to mutual entailment, or completely made up beliefs deemed true just because it fits into a false system of beliefs. For example, let’s say that I believe that the world is flat; I have the ability to walk off the end of the Earth and into space within belief set. The belief that I can walk off the end of the Earth into space coheres within the system of beliefs that the Earth is indeed flat. Since my belief is consistent within the larger system of beliefs regarding the Earths flatness, the coherence theory justifies my claim is true. Therefore, an altered
The coherence theory centrally touches on the justification of a belief, in that any belief is reliant on its consistency to a coherent set of beliefs that it pertains to. Alcoff includes in her work A Case for Coherence that ‘A belief is justified to the extent to which the belief-set of which it is a member is coherent’ (Alcoff, 161). This theory concludes that every belief is verified by its coherence to other beliefs pertaining to the same system. However, the system of beliefs to which a belief is contained can be either an internal or external (Alcoff). Critics of the coherence theory question the validity of a belief simply due to its assortment into a larger system of beliefs. The primary difficulty associated with the coherence theory is the verifying process to conclude a belief as truth. In order to understand the verification process in the coherence theory, it is important to understand simply what the word “coherence” refers to within this context. Therefore, the next section of this paper will break down the word “coherence” and why the coherence theory is a flawed perception of truth without …show more content…
Alcoff implies that coherence can be either seen a consistency of a belief with respect to other beliefs in a set, or mutual entailment which refers to a reversible binary relation amongst beliefs in a set. The obvious complications that Alcoff points out with coherence is that “the latter requirement…renders most actual belief sets incoherent and therefore unjustified, while the problem with the former is that it would force us into the position of accepting questionable or even fictional systems as justified beliefs if they only have internal consistency” (Alcoff, 161). The basic challenge associated with “coherence” in this context is that the requirements allows for either strong inconsistencies among universally believed sets due to mutual entailment, or completely made up beliefs deemed true just because it fits into a false system of beliefs. For example, let’s say that I believe that the world is flat; I have the ability to walk off the end of the Earth and into space within belief set. The belief that I can walk off the end of the Earth into space coheres within the system of beliefs that the Earth is indeed flat. Since my belief is consistent within the larger system of beliefs regarding the Earths flatness, the coherence theory justifies my claim is true. Therefore, an altered