# Does truth cohere or correspond?



## RamistThomist (Nov 5, 2006)

Which one has the least philosophical problems: a coherence theory of truth or a corresponded theory of truth?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Nov 5, 2006)

The coherence theory has far more problems. Something can be coherent within itself and not be true. Obviously if something corresponds to reality it is necessarily true.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 5, 2006)

Must it be one or the other? Why not both?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Nov 6, 2006)

Because if either one is correct, then the other is incorrect.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 6, 2006)

caleb_woodrow said:


> Because if either one is correct, then the other is incorrect.



How so?


----------



## Civbert (Nov 6, 2006)

Coherence is necessary. Everything must conform to the law of contradiction if truth is to have meaning. 

The problem with correspondence to "reality" is how do we _know _what is "real"? Without coherence, there is no way to check correspondence, because a none coherent system can be full of contradictions. And contradictory truth is unknowable.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Nov 6, 2006)

Civbert said:


> Coherence is necessary. Everything must conform to the law of contradiction if truth is to have meaning.
> 
> The problem with correspondence to "reality" is how do we _know _what is "real"? Without coherence, there is no way to check correspondence, because a none coherent system can be full of contradictions. And contradictory truth is unknowable.



I would agree that something needs to cohere in order to correspond with reality. 

"Another problem coherentism has to face is the Plurality objection. There is nothing within the definition of coherence which makes it impossible for two entirely different sets of beliefs to be internally coherent. Thus there might be several such sets. But if one supposes that there can only be one complete set of truths, coherentism must provide a way to choose between these competing sets." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherentism

John Byle says that "One alternative standard of truth is that of coherence. For something to be true it should cohere with other propositions that we know to be true. However, the mere fact that a proposition coheres with other truths is not sufficient to establish that it does, in fact, correspond with reality. For example, 'my car is green' may well cohere with all other truths about my car, even though my car may in fact be blue" ('The Divine Challenge pg. 27)


----------



## Civbert (Nov 6, 2006)

It's true that there can be different sets of "truths" with coherence. Just consider Euclidean and Hyperbolic Geometry. But the reason the are contradictory is they have contradictory axioms. But they are both perfectly valid systems. 

But I still see the main problem with correspondence is the determination of what is "real". How does one know things "in-fact". What is real? How do you test for "realness".


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Dec 12, 2006)

In order to correspond with reality, truth must be coherent. Yet, it seems that a finite human being may have coherant thoughts, but (as was suggested in another thread I think) their cognitive faculties are not properly functioning. Would this seem to indicate that a correspondence theory of truth works better than a mere coherence theory of truth?


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Dec 12, 2006)

In my limited understanding (and it is very limited indeed) it seems to me that one must have both. Truth will correspond with reality and such truth will be naturally coherent.


----------

