Strict consistency is when claims are connected in such a fashion that one statement follows from another. The value of a proof largely lies in its ability to reconcile individual facts into a coherent whole. It is inadequate as a criterion because it treats facts in an isolated fashion without true cohesion and integration nevertheless it remains a necessary condition for the truth of any argument, owing to the law of noncontradiction. Accordingly, an individual is consistent if he does not contradict himself. Mere consistency is when correct statements do not contradict, but are not necessarily related. For example, general assent once held that the sun revolved about the flat earth. If it merely means agreement, as in a unanimous vote, its value is questionable. There is some value in the criterion if it means innate truth, such as the laws of logic and mathematics. According to consensus gentium, the universal consent of all mankind (all humans holding a distinct belief), proves it is true. Some view opinions held by all people to be valid criteria of truth. The criteria listed represent those most commonly used by scholars and the general public. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable. An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own. This necessity is driven by the varying, and conflicting, claims of different philosophies. Understanding a philosophy's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation of that philosophy. They are tools of verification, and as in the problem of the criterion, the reliability of these tools is disputed. In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. WikiProject Philosophy may be able to help recruit an expert. The specific problem is: the article does not provide an adequate portrayal of the philosophical literature on this issue. Even in the mind of a single subject, consistency of beliefs is more demanding than coherence, but neither is very likely.Ĭoherence and consistency are best understood as desirable conditions for any theory of truth, including the correspondence theory of truth.This WikiProject needs attention from an expert in philosophy. In a system of belief as large as the culture of a society, there are many conflicting beliefs. But consistency is only possible for relatively modest logical and mathematical systems. The coherence theory is close to the consistency theory of truth. In this case, coherence is one way to justify a belief. In traditional epistemology, the coherence may be internal to a personal set of beliefs that are accessible to a subject. In analytic language philosophy, the truth of a proposition depends on its agreement with some larger set of propositions, ideally all known true propositions and any logical inferences from those propositions. Charles Sanders Peirce's theory of pragmatic truth is the coherent inter-subjective agreement of an open community of inquirers. Perfect coherence is not to be expected, of course. In scientific theories, every new observational fact must be integrated with existing facts to make them maximally coherent. In philosophies of idealism, all the ideas or beliefs are said to cohere with one another, perhaps because the world is reason itself or created by a rational agent. Adolphe Quételet Jürgen Renn Juan Roederer Jerome Rothstein David Ruelle Tilman Sauerīiosemiotics Free Will Mental Causation James SymposiumĪ coherence theory bases the truth of a belief on the degree to which it coheres ("hangs together") with all the other beliefs in a system of beliefs (typically one person's beliefs, but it could be any body of knowledge).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |