Theory of KnowledgeTOK

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 truthThe 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 truthThe 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 truthThe 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 truthAccording the late 19th 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 valuableA 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 detrimentalBut 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 problemScience 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 weekWhich theory of truth do you think is the

best, and why?

Discussion questions for this weekIs 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 weekDombrowski 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)