|
|
Beyond correspondence theory there are two more theories on what to base truth upon. One of those is the theory of coherence. The idea behind this theory is that something is true if it coheres to other statements. In other words, if a statement does not conflict with another statement it is thus true. This leads to the idea that the more coherent something is and the more sense it makes the more true it is. Essentially all of this is based on the idea that a statements truth is based on it consistency, comprehensiveness and coherency. So the more that a statement meets these criteria, the more true it is. Most people who follow this theory do so because they believe that we cannot truly know reality since we do not perfectly perceive the world, just like the argument against correspondence theory. They believe the consistency, comprehensiveness, and coherency are the only way to test for truth. There is a rather large snag, though, that this train of thought hits. That is the problem of how the coherence theory tells the difference between truth and falsehood. Think about this: I could come up with a very elaborate lie that is consistent, comprehensive and has coherency, and according to the theory of coherency, it makes it true until it conflicts with another statement, which could also be false. Since there is no basis upon what is true except for how coherent it is, that means that something that is true could be considered untrue if a more coherent false statement contradicts the truth. This is obviously a large problem, but most people who believe in this theory say that the truth will always overcome since falsehoods are bound to be proven false. |