Lecture 4: The nature and value of truth

What is truth? Like the questions “What is knowledge?” and “What turns a true belief into knowledge?” asked in lectures 2 & 3, the question “What is truth?” is a conceptual question. We can’t answering it by drawing up a list of truths. Rather, we need to work out what conditions need to be met for a statement or belief to count as true.

The democratic theory of truth The democratic theory says that a statement or belief is true if and only if everyone (or at least the majority of people) take it to be true. Problems with the democratic theory: Couldn’t everyone believe something that was false? Might this theory lead to relativism? Relativism about truth is the idea that a statement could be true for one individual (or the members of one group) but false for another individual (or the members of another group). Do we want to say that a statement is true for the members of a given cultural group if and only if all (or the majority of the) the members of that group take it to be true?

The pragmatic theory of truth The pragmatic theory of truth says that a statement is true if and only if a person’s believing it helps them to achieve one or more of their goals. Leads to relativism: the idea that statements could be true for one person but not for another. Problematic for other reasons too – there seem to be many false statements such that believing them will help someone achieve one of their goals. For example: A belief that “The job interview is at 10am” when it is really at 10:30am, and the bus that would get me to the interview by 10:20am has broken down. A belief that “There are no cigarettes in the glove-box of my car” when there are cigarettes in the glove-box of my car, and I want to quit smoking.

The coherence theory of truth The coherence theory of truth says that a belief is true if and only if it coheres with (fits into) a coherent system of belief. Like the pragmatic theory, the coherence theory of truth seems to lead to relativism. Couldn’t my belief system be just as coherent as yours despite the fact that we believe different things? This may be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage depending on where you stand vis-à-vis relativism. The coherence theory is also susceptible to the “coherent fairy story” objection. Couldn’t my beliefs cohere with each other despite the fact that my belief system as a whole bears no (or very little) relation to reality?

The correspondence theory of truth The correspondence theory says that a statement or belief is true if and only if it corresponds to (matches up with/agrees with) reality. Pros: Seems to line up pretty well with our common-sense ideas about truth. Doesn’t seem to lead to relativism. Seems to match up to what scientists mean by “truth”. Cons: It is not really clear what it is for a statement (a chunk of language) to correspond to – or fit with - a state of affairs (a chunk of reality).

The value of truth According the late 19 th Century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, truth has become something of a religion for modern, western man. Nietzsche claims that modern man has killed God (that’s OK, we created him anyway) and erected truth in the place of God. Nietzsche is at least right about our placing great value on truth. But, isn’t Nietzsche wrong about our love for truth being akin to a religion? Calling it a religion makes it sound irrational. But isn’t the value we place on truth completely rational?

Truths that are clearly valuable A true belief about the location of one’s car keys is clearly better than a false one. A true belief about the location of the ATM machine is clearly better than a false one. A true belief about the weather is clearly better than a false one.

Truths that are clearly detrimental But hang on, doesn’t it depend on the context? A true belief about the location of one’s car keys could be worse than a false one if you are drunk. A true belief about the location of the ATM machine could be worse than a false one if you are a compulsive gambler on a gambling binge. Could a false belief about the weather ever be better than a true one?

The Oppenheimer problem Science seems to be very good at uncovering truths about the natural world. Sometimes we assume that scientific truths are so valuable that uncovering them has to be a good thing. Oppenheimer, the scientist whose work made nuclear weapons possible, came to doubt this idea. What do you think?

Journal entries for this week Which theory of truth do you think is the best, and why?

Discussion questions for this week Is the fact that a theory of truth leads to relativism an advantage or a disadvantage of that theory? Can you think of another case in which a false belief is more advantageous than a true one? Should scientists think about the possible consequences of their work? Or, should scientists be motivated solely by a desire to uncover truths about the workings of the natural world?

Reading for next week Dombrowski et al, Theory of Knowledge Course Companion … Read from the beginning of chapter 2, How do we know? (page 31), to the end of the section on sense perception (top of page 32)