Correspondence Theory
There is a slight applicability problem with this theory. Its scope is somewhat limited. Most of us unknowingly rely on the correspodence theory of truth to separate truth from falsehood. It means that something is true when it corresponds to reality. I know, I am so over-simplifying it aren’t I? Try this test. The moon is made of cheese. Is this true or false? How can we find out? We can (spacemen) take a trip to the moon an see if this statement corresponds to reality. Unfortunately, there will be no “100% Moon Made” on your next hunk of cheese. The moon is in reality *not* made of cheese and therefore my statement is false. Not so bad right? Hold on, because here comes a huge wrench.
While this may work quite well in the present or where physical evidence is available, it does not work so well with historical narratives. Does this shock you? Not yet? Let’s travel deeper down the rabbit hole. If we read a story that is seemingly a historical narrative, how do we “verify” its truth or falsehood? In the case of little or non-existent physical evidence (besides the narrative itself), this becomes a big problem. We cannot check to see if the claims correspond to reality because that reality is in the irretrievable past. We cannot physically get back to the past to take a look. Because we lack this sort of access we cannot effectively utilize this method for verification. What do we have left? We have several options that I intend to explore. Stay tuned.
anathema on 17 May 2006 at 9:27 am #
Well that appears to be the root problem with Correspondence Theory as a whole. If the true context cannot be established, it seems to me that the comparisons that are made, in particular those that refer to things that cannot be physically observed and tested, fall apart quickly. I could easily make the proposition that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists if it is a fact that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but what does that mean and better yet what does that prove. I think I am opening up a can of worms but I do not think, based on initial thinking on the subject, that the theory CAN work with something not observable. Now that I have talked in circles, I eagerly await your “solutions” to the problem.
roodee on 17 May 2006 at 2:17 pm #
My intention was to demonstrate that much of the knowledge we possess is at best propositional and at worst opinion. There is nothing wrong with the former sort of knowledge for we live our lives everyday with this sort of information. I did not mean to resurrect some old form of positivism whereby we can only know things we can empically verify. If this were indeed the case we would be locked out of all sorts of knowledge including the statement that “true knowledge can be obtained only through emperical testing”. The problem I was referring to was really that lack of caution and a rigorous program for obtaining knowledge we cannot be certain of.