Tree organigram

Mer som dette

Basic ideas en smantics

Ved paola puentes

Procesos de la administración educativa y funcionarios encargados.

Ved LEIDY BIBIANA TABORDA QUICENO

Cultural TP

Ved Segundo Frigerio

Truth and Knowledge in Everyday Life

Ved Justin Parent

Theories of Truth and Kinds of Knowledge

Pragmatism.

Ethics, law, and the use of eye witness testimonies. Eyewitness testimonies are not always accurate, and are therefore dubious statements (i.e., what did the witness fail to see, context issues). However, an eye witness testimony will be useful to a prosecutor, and therefore it will be dubbed factual. Because an eyewitness testimony is useful in a court of law, it is considered to be true. This example also follows through with ideas that cannot be scientifically proven: if there is an absence of CCTV cameras, how can we prove that the eyewitness is telling the truth? Because the statement is important to further the case, it’s unprovability is disregarded.

“Nobody ever decided that “bear” would mean a furry creature with teeth; over time, people found this syllable was useful for pointing out the dangerous creatures, and this helped them survive and thrive.” (Philosophy, 2018).

What is the pragmatic theory of truth?

This can be further understood/described using the following kinds of knowledge: knowledge-wh, which describes knowledge of who, knowledge of why, knowledge of what, and knowledge of whether. These questions can help us understand if something is useful, and to whom it is useful. It can also be related to knowledge-how, which describes the knowledge of how to do something/abilities. Knowledge pertaining to these abilities/skills can help us understand when something is useful, and when it isn’t. Lastly, knowledge-that can be used for further understanding. As stated in the lesson’s example: “…if we say that an apple if red, we cannot say that it is a red balloon or a clown’s nose.” Proposition knowledge, described in knowledge-that, describes the ability to put a statement into natural language, and our ability to understand that. By understanding that the apple is red, we are using propositional knowledge, and therefore, knowledge-that.

“Pragmatism argues that there are many important ideas that cannot be scientifically verified, but that may nonetheless be treated as true.” (Philosophy, 2018).

“Depending on the particular pragmatic theory, true statements might be those that are useful to believe, that are the result of inquiry, that have withstood ongoing examination, that meet a standard of warranted assertibility…” (Capps, 2019). Warranted assertibility: the definition of the nature of knowledge according to which only facts are knowledge (Capps, 2019).

The pragmatic theory of truth states that a statement is true if it is useful for us to believe (Dowden & Swartz).

A pragmatic theory of truth that cannot be conceived of the truth of a belief in the world. So, for example, if we say that an apple is red, we cannot say that it is a red balloon or a clown’s nose. The discovery of truth occurs only through interaction with the world.

Consistency.

This theory can be applied to gossip. Stacy has been rumoured to have gone on a date with Matt. If we know that Stacy is dating Matt, and that she has previously gone on dates with Matt, we can assume that this statement is true as it corresponds with previous statements proven to be true. An example of the theory of correspondence and coherence can be found within many articles published by TMZ, who rely on past truths to justify new gossip.

If a ball is thrown into the air, and comes back down to land on the ground, we know that this is because of the force of gravity. This statement is true because it is tested and proven that any object, when thrown into the air, will come back down to the ground. This is proven by Newton’s law of gravitation. Because we know that Newton’s law is true, and the fate of other objects thrown in the air is true, this statement is also true.

What is the consitency theory of truth?

This can be further understood by the following kinds of knowledge: knowledge-that, as this theory of truth revolves around a statement’s relation to other statements. It may also be described using knowledge by acquaintance: truth may be obtained through continued interaction between people (if you know certain facts about someone, you can assume that a new fact is true as long as it corresponds with the previous facts).

This theory states that if a opinionated statement consists with all other statements considered to be true, then it must be true as well. It is consistent with previous truths

Correspondence.

What are a few real world examples?

“’Donald Trump is currently the President of the United States of America.’ Is a true statement because as of today, he resides in the White House, works in the Oval Office, and enjoys the power of Commander in Chief of US military forces.” (Bricker, 2019).

“…if I claim that it is raining outside of my house right now, that sentence is true just in case it is actually raining outside my house now. If it is not raining outside of my house now, that statement is false.” (Rusnell, 2017).

What is the correspondence theory of truth?

This can be further understood/described by the following kinds of knowledge: knowledge-that, particularly declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge includes to descriptive knowledge, which covers the relationship between two things. In this case, it would describe the relation between a statement and the world.

This theory states that truth/falsehood within a statement can only be determined by its relation to the world/reality, and how accurately it can describe this world/reality (David, 2015).