False Knowledge Vs Correspondence Theory

Among the many theories discussed, the Correspondence Theory and Coherent Theory cause quite a bit of controversy. When it comes to challenging people’s knowledge and beliefs, it can be a slippery slope that may or may not end with a satisfying conclusion. Everyone has a system in which they determine whether something is “true” or not, and these two theories are the most commonly used when it comes to making these determinations. “Truth is exact correspondence with reality” (Yogananda, n.d.). According to Pecorino, the Correspondence Theory is “based on the belief that a proposition is true when it conforms with some fact or state of affairs” (2000). This means that something is only true when there are cold hard facts to prove it to be true. For example, the statement “there is a toothpick in my sandwich” can be proved to be true just by looking at my sandwich and seeing that there is a toothpick physically wedged in it. One of strengths of the …show more content…
When it comes to the different types of knowledge, the two whose authenticity are always debated are genuine knowledge and false knowledge. Genuine knowledge is when something is known definitely; it can be proved, referenced, and be almost general knowledge to all who go after it since it only has one true conclusive deduction. Genuine knowledge differs from false knowledge in the fact that false knowledge is based on a person’s belief. There goes a phrase “what happens when you assume: you’re almost always wrong”. An assumption does not always have true facts behind it and is just based on a personal belief, therefore making the conclusion that the person has come to wrong in most cases. Relating to Shaw’s quote, when a person is purely ignorant to a situation, it is much healthier than that person creating a false sense of “truth”, and convincing themselves, possibly along with other people, that their “truth” is