This seems not to do justice to our sense that experience plays a special role in controlling our systems of belief, but coherentists have contested the claim in various ways. Others of this school of thought, for example, Brand. In this view, a proposition is true to the extent that it is a necessary constituent of a systematically coherent whole. Joachim, truth is a systematic coherence that involves more than logical consistency. For a pure coherence theorist, experience is only relevant as the source of perceptual beliefs, which take their place as part of the coherent or incoherent set. ble: for example, one could be a coherentist about justification, while adopt- ing a correspondence theory of truth, and many coherentists have taken this. According to another version of coherence theory, championed especially by H.H. To many thinkers the weak point of pure coherence theories is that they fail to include a proper sense of the way in which actual systems of belief are sustained by persons with perceptual experience, impinged upon by their environment. The theory, though surprising at first sight, has two strengths: (i) we test beliefs for truth in the light of other beliefs, including perceptual beliefs, and (ii) we cannot step outside our own best system of belief, to see how well it is doing in terms of correspondence with the world. 3 The Coherence Theory: seems circular or question begging: it defines truth in terms of coherence with our knowledge.
The view that the truth of a proposition consists in its being a member of some suitably defined body of other propositions: a body that is consistent, coherent, and possibly endowed with other virtues, provided these are not defined in terms of truth.
0 kommentar(er)
