Correspondence theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The correspondence theory of truth can be found in representatives of realism . According to this, subjective statements are true if they agree (correspond) with the facts in the objective world. It is usually presented as a counter-position to the coherence theories of truth, which see the coherence of a statement with other statements as the truth of a statement, the decisive (or only a supplementary) criterion or an indication of the truth of a statement.

The image theory represents a tightening of the correspondence theory , which regards the following conditions as necessary and sufficient for correspondence (see also isomorphism ):

Semantic fact
The sub-elements of the statement represent corresponding elements of the fact.
Structural equality
The sub-elements of the statement are arranged one below the other in the same way as the sub-elements of the fact.

objection

This article or section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

Although correspondence theory may seem obvious at first glance, a number of philosophical problems arise with the correspondence theory of truth. Fundamental objections of skepticism : On the one hand, it cannot be decided whether we will really succeed in recognizing facts as they actually are, since psychological, social, historical and also physical factors (e.g. sensory perception and neural data processing) ) can influence the knowledge of facts and thus the truthfulness of statements is difficult to check. Strictly speaking, one would have to recognize the reality / fact independently of its being recognized and formulated in order to then compare it with the knowledge cast in a statement. This comparison is clearly not feasible.

Specific objections:

  • Properties and relations cannot be understood as facts.
  • Even after being made more precise by image theory, the concept of correspondence is still too unclear or self-referential.
  • There are clear indications that facts are changed by our own observation ( perception illusion ).
  • There is no neutral position outside of one's own beliefs from which to check a match.
  • The slingshot argument (or "slingshot argument"): Intensionality of statements vs. Non-dimensionality of facts.

Mainly some of these reasons lead to the fact that even realists do not work with the simple version of the correspondence theory described above, but mostly with variations of the basic model.

Web links