-
TheMadFool
13.8kThe first credited with the definitive formulation of The Coherence Theory of Truth was Harold Joachim
Now, my view on the coherence theory itself is, let's say, crude for I confess to be ignorant of better versions of it. The basic assertion seems to be that the truth of propositions depends completely on how well it fits with other propositions. For instance, in favor of the theory, the truth of the claim, "god doesn't exist" fits quite well with the proposition, "there's too much evil in the world".
However, in my humble opinion, a web of lies can also be made to cohere. A person can make a false claim and his accomplices can make other claims that altogether form a coherent but false set of claims. I believe many criminal activities, all of which involve creating, sustaining and perpetuating deception, actually employ coherence as a weapon to fool the gullible.
This problem, if it is one, may actually penetrate into the most cherished and apparently satisfactorily proven belief systems; even science may not be immune to this malady. I can't come up with an example off the top of my head but what about the luminiferous ether theory? It coheres quite well with light being a wave and thus requiring some kind of medium. I know present scientific consensus is that the ether doesn't exist but all I want to convey is that had we relied on coherence alone, it would be quite difficult to make sense of wave without a medium.
Relying on only the coherence theory of truth is like believing that just because the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fits together we have solved the puzzle, arrived at a true picture of reality. This is an error because what we've assembled on just the basis of a fit between the pieces could be perfectly coherent and still completely false.
Comments... -
A Seagull
615
But the beauty of it is that you could never tell that it was 'false'.
Instead one has to rely on a more pragmatic test.. ie does it work? or at least does it work for you? -
unenlightened
9.8kSo to flesh it out just a little, the idea is that one has a world view, that is fairly stable - fire burns, shit smells, Trump is an idiot. I am a philosopher, this is the inter web. And these things have to be compatible with each other, and to the extent that they are they 'cohere'. So if you tell me that Trump can tie his own shoe laces, I will say 'that cannot be true, the man is an idiot.' Tying one's own shoelaces does not cohere with being an idiot.
And the theory allows that given further evidence, I might have to concede that after all, Trump can tie his shoelaces and therefore I must stop thinking he is an idiot and upgrade him too imbecile.
And as a general rule, it seems fairly reasonable as far as it goes. Miracles are incoherent; don't believe in them. -
Shawn
13.5kFor instance, in favor of the theory, the truth of the claim, "god doesn't exist" fits quite well with the proposition, "there's too much evil in the world". — TheMadFool
I don't exactly know the why of bringing up Godel; but, suppose we have a theory that is such and such, it seems to me that as long as the theory is incomplete; whilst remaining coherent, then there's pragmatically no problem, is there? -
creativesoul
12.1kHowever, in my humble opinion, a web of lies can also be made to cohere. — TheMadFool
Or... setting deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief(lies) aside... A web of falsehoods can be quite coherent. -
creativesoul
12.1k1) True and truth are so always with respect to, and within, some standard, and not otherwise. No standard, no truth. — tim wood
Standards are linguistic devices... I think?
If so, then true belief would require language. Clearly, that's not the case. There are non linguistic creatures who have true belief. -
TheMadFool
13.8kSounds like the truth of any set of propositions being equated to the mutual validity of the propositions. I'm pretty open to that, although it seems to reduce the meaning of 'truth' to the meaning of other words like 'validity'. — noAxioms
How much of a problem is this, if I understood correctly, regression of definitions? It doesn't seem to be an issue in ordinary discourse. Perhaps language, as we know it, fails to meet the standards of more formal discourse, like in philosophy?
But the beauty of it is that you could never tell that it was 'false'.
Instead one has to rely on a more pragmatic test.. ie does it work? or at least does it work for you? — A Seagull
I don't think being unable to discover falsehood is in any way a "beauty" but that's just me. Other theories on truth like the pragmatic theory are not being discussed here; then again, according to coherence theory, other theories of truth must cohere with it. Can you give me the lowdown on the pragmatic theory of truth if that's what you're alluding to?
So to flesh it out just a little, the idea is that one has a world view, that is fairly stable - fire burns, shit smells, Trump is an idiot. I am a philosopher, this is the inter web. And these things have to be compatible with each other, and to the extent that they are they 'cohere'. So if you tell me that Trump can tie his own shoe laces, I will say 'that cannot be true, the man is an idiot.' Tying one's own shoelaces does not cohere with being an idiot.
And the theory allows that given further evidence, I might have to concede that after all, Trump can tie his shoelaces and therefore I must stop thinking he is an idiot and upgrade him too imbecile.
And as a general rule, it seems fairly reasonable as far as it goes. Miracles are incoherent; don't believe in them. — unenlightened
Firstly, sorry to know Trump isn't in your good books. Secondly, what is the difference, if any, between logical consistency and coherence?
I don't exactly know the why of bringing up Godel; but, suppose we have a theory that is such and such, it seems to me that as long as the theory is incomplete; whilst remaining coherent, then there's pragmatically no problem, is there? — Wallows
I'm unsure of how Godel's work impacts this discussion but isn't his incompleteness theorems restricted to mathematics? Although I remember him being labeled foremost as a logician. Also, I don't wish to discuss other theories of truth like pragmatism unless you can show me that some proposition concerning them is logically implied by any claims I've made. Thank you.
Many, many posts and threads on "true" and "truth." I offer this as brief summation for consideration.
1) True and truth are so always with respect to, and within, some standard, and not otherwise. No standard, no truth.
2) Always there is confusion between a truth, something being true, and the truth, the latter being a chimera.
3) As general terms, both true and truth are generic abstract references to whatever, by whatever standard, just is true. And nothing whatsoever more than that. That is, in themelves and absent context, true and truth are either meaningless or at best expressions of wishful thinking. — tim wood
Does any of what you said have a truth value or are you using some criterion of truth in your claims? If no then what you said is not true but if yes then what criterion of truth did you use?
Or... setting deliberately misrepresenting one's own thought and belief(lies) aside... A web of falsehoods can be quite coherent. — creativesoul
Ok. -
A Seagull
615
The 'lowdown' on the beautiful theory can be found in my book 'The pattern paradigm', but you won't like it. lol. -
A Seagull
615
Yes people have believed and indeed still do believe things that other people think are not true. And even people have believed things to be true and later decided that they are not true.
There is no logical inconsistency in this.
I am not sure what you mean by 'psychological state' or are you just trying to distance the concept of 'truth' about the world from human judgement? An impossible and futile task in my opinion. -
A Seagull
615
Well , the word 'truth' would seem to have 2 uses:
1. If a person considers something to be 'true', then they would have no need to investigate the data relating to it any more and can simply use that 'truth' if and when circumstances merit it.
2. If a person communicates that they consider something to be 'true', there is an implied invitation or encouragement for the receiver of the communication to believe it too. -
A Seagull
615
I am not sure what you mean by 'verifiable performative function'.
Of course 'similarly situated observers' cannot be compelled to 'assent'.
You seem to be assuming that all people must see the world in the same way that you do. This is unjustifiable. While there may be considerable consensus about the way the world appears to be, this cannot be justifiably extrapolated to the claim that everyone always sees the world the same way. All you know is the way you see the world.
As for your example, this might well fall into the consensus category; but your conclusion cannot be logically proven, at least not without the inclusion somewhere of a human judgement, which necessarily makes the conclusion subjective and not proven. -
TheMadFool
13.8kMy question is what standard/criterion of truth are you using when you speak/write?
-
TheMadFool
13.8kThe 'lowdown' on the beautiful theory can be found in my book 'The pattern paradigm', but you won't like it. lol. — A Seagull
:rofl: I'm all over the place. -
TheMadFool
13.8kDepends. Whatever works in context — tim wood
What works for you? I'm curious, that's all. You claimed that the notions, if they are different, of true and truth are meaningless. Is this claim true/false and by what criterion/standard? -
christian2017
1.4k
I guess you are saying some religions might be a well devised set of fallacies phrased in such a way to be coherent? Due to site guide lines I can't name the Holy book but there are atleast one very long book in a particular Holy book that is written in such a way that would make me think this is not written by a crazy man just venting his anger.
No wrong answer, if you feel inclined i can privately send you the name of that book in that Holy book. I'm sure you have better things to do though.
But yes Lawyers do this all the time. You can take 10 coherently written fallacies and present a pretty good argument that can manipulate others to benefit you or I or that guy over there.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- Phil. Writing Challenge - June 2025
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum