|Abstract||Although its use is not universal, there is a map of the logical space of theories of truth that is widely applied. According to this map, the most foundational divide amongst theories of truth is that between deflationary and inflationary theories, where, roughly, the former hold that truth is an insubstantial, logical property of little philosophical interest and the latter that it is a substantial property suitable for philosophical attention. Amongst the inflationary theories, there are other fundamental divisions. For example, on the one hand, correspondence theorists hold that the truth of a proposition is a matter of the proposition’s standing in a relation to something else which is not a proposition, such as a fact. On the other hand, coherence theorists hold that the truth of a proposition is a matter of its relations to other propositions. And again, pragmatists hold that the truth of a proposition is a matter of its being useful to believe. Throughout the twentieth century, philosophers used one or other version of this map to orient themselves and their students in the often complex and confusing debates about truth, even while acknowledging that the map may be incomplete in crucial respects (it does not include functionalist and pluralist views, for example). Our objection to the map is not that it is incomplete—although it obviously is—, but that it needs to be radically redrawn. In particular, the familiar division between coherence theories and correspondence theories needs to be rethought. The coherence theory is so often glibly dismissed as absurd that labelling someone as a coherence theorist is often seen as reason enough to ignore them.1 While none of the philosophers usually so labelled should be ignored, we shall argue (§3) that none of them actually held this view anyway. The difficulty—perhaps impossibility—of finding a genuine coherence theorist of truth strikes us as more than just an indication that this is a rare animal. Rather, it suggests the possibility of something significant, namely, that the only occupant of this position in historical space is a set of slogans; this would give us some reason to suppose that the logical space of theories is just as empty at this point..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Keith Lehrer (2005). Coherence and the Truth Connection. Erkenntnis 63 (3):413 - 423.
Laurence BonJour (1994). Fumerton on Coherence Theories. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:103-108.
Richard Fumerton (1994). The Incoherence of Coherence Theories. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:89-102.
Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen & Douglas Edwards (2011). Truth as One(s) and Many: On Lynch's Alethic Functionalism1. Analytic Philosophy 52 (3):213-230.
Paul Thagard (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):28-47.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. Oxford University Press.
Bradley Dowden, Truth. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Charles B. Cross (1995). Probability, Evidence, and the Coherence of the Whole Truth. Synthese 103 (2):153 - 170.
Ryan Christensen (2011). Theories and Theories of Truth. Metaphysica 12 (1):31-43.
Wouter Meijs & Igor Douven (2007). On the Alleged Impossibility of Coherence. Synthese 157 (3):347 - 360.
Dale Dorsey (2006). A Coherence Theory of Truth in Ethics. Philosophical Studies 127 (3):493 - 523.
David Atkinson & Jeanne Peijnenburg (2010). Crosswords and Coherence. The Review of Metaphysics 63 (4):807-820.
Added to index2010-12-16
Total downloads82 ( #11,424 of 722,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,437 of 722,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?