CRITERIA OF TRUTH

Standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims
Tools of verification
Standards to distinguish truth from falsehood
Not all criteria are equally valid. Some are sufficient, while others are
questionable.
PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH
If an idea works, then it must be true.
The consequences of applying a concept reveal its truth value upon
examination of the results.
Must be used with caution and reservation, due to its potential for false
positives.
COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
This refers to a consistent and overarching explanation for all facts.
To be coherent, all pertinent facts must be arranged in a consistent and
cohesive fashion as an integrated whole.
The main limitation lies not in the standard, but in the human inability to
acquire all facts of an experience. Only an omniscient mind could be aware of
all the relevant information.
A scholar must accept this limitation and accept as true the most coherent
explanation for the available facts.
CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
A claim should correspond to its object.
An idea which corresponds to its object is indeed true.
Held by most philosophers to be the most valid of the criteria of truth
Problem: Ensuring perfect correspondence requires additional tests
What is posited VS What exists in objective reality
AUTHORITY
The opinions of those with significant experience, highly trained or
possessing an advanced degree are often considered a form of proof.
Their knowledge and familiarity within a given field or area of knowledge
command respect and allow their statements to be criteria of truth.
Not an infallible criterion
CONSENSUS GENTIUM
Agreement of the People
Holding opinions held by all people to be valid criteria of truth
The universal consent of all mankind; all humans holding a distinct belief
proves it is true
That which is universal carries the weight of the truth
Laws of Mathematics
Not always reliable (the general belief that the Earth was flat and that the sun
revolved around the earth)
CONSISTENCY
Mere Consistency and Strict Consistency
Mere: Statements, though not necessarily related, should not contradict one
another.
o Inadequate as a criterion: It treats facts in an isolated fashion without
true cohesion and integration.
o Still a necessary condition for the truth of any argument

Strict/Rigorous Consistency: Claims are connected in such a fashion that one

statement follows from another.
Formal Logic and Mathematical Rules
o If all As are Bs, and all Bs are Cs, then all As are Cs.

o Syllogism:

All trees are made of wood.

An elm is a tree.
Then an elm is made of wood.
Strict/Rigorous Consistency:
o Not always reliable

o Premises sometimes require another test of truth

o Strict consistency may produce results lacking coherence and

completeness
o Nevertheless, it is still an essential component in distinguishing truth
from falsehood.
CUSTOM
The belief that doing customary practices most likely prevents error
Using common vernacular, wearing common fashion, doing what is popular,
doing what other people are doing, belief in superstitions
If something becomes customary, most likely it works.
Not a serious test of truth
MAJORITY RULE
Statistical method of accepting assertions and proposals
The more people accept it, the more valid it becomes
Used to determine group decisions in democratic systems
Poor determinant of truth, subject to a lot of criticisms
NAVE REALISM
Only that which is directly observable/perceptible by the human senses is
true.
First-hand observation becomes the standard of truth for a given claim.
Insufficient: A host of natural phenomena are demonstrably true, but are not
observable by the unaided sense.
TIME
Often referred to as the Test of Time
Over time, erroneous beliefs and logical errors will be revealed. If the belief is
true, the mere passage of time cannot adversely affect its validity.
Insufficient: Subject to similar flaws as custom and tradition
TRADITION
That which is held for generations is true.
Ideas gaining the loyalty of multiple generations possess a measure of
credibility.
Subject to the same criticism as Custom
It is possible for falsehoods to be passed down from generation to generation
since tradition generally emphasizes repetition over critical evaluation.
RATIONALISM
Regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge
Any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge and justification
A methodology or theory in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but
intellectual and deductive
Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure.
Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the
intellect can directly grasp these truths.
Rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics,
ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them
causes one to fall into contradiction.
Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical
evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth.
THESES OF RATIONALISM
INTUITION/DEDUCTION THESIS
Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition
alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.
Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition,
we just see it to be true in such a way as to form a true, warranted belief in
it.
Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited
premises through valid arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true
if the premises are true.
We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and that it is greater
than two.
We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a prime number greater
than two.
Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori, which is to
say knowledge gained independently of sense experience.
INNATE KNOWLEDGE THESIS
We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our
rational nature.
 Like the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the
existence of knowledge gained a priori, independently of experience.
The difference between them rests in the accompanying understanding of
how this a priori knowledge is gained.
The Intuition/Deduction thesis cites intuition and subsequent deductive
reasoning.
The Innate Knowledge thesis offers our rational nature. Our innate knowledge
is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and deduction.
It is just part of our nature.
Experiences may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to
consciousness, but the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge
itself.
It has in some way been with us all along.
According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in an earlier
existence.
According to others, God provided us with it at creation. Still others say it is
part of our nature through natural selection.
A rationalist adopting this thesis claims that we dont really learn things in
the traditional usage of the word.
But rather we simply bring to light what we already know.
INNATE CONCEPT THESIS
We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of
our rational nature.
According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained
from experience.
They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while sense
experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to
consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the
information they contain.
Some claim that the Innate Concept thesis is entailed by the Innate
Knowledge Thesis.
A particular instance of knowledge can only be innate if the concepts that are
contained in the known proposition are also innate.

The Indispensability of Reason Thesis

The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the
ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been
gained by us through sense experience.
The Superiority of Reason Thesis
The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have
innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience.
EMPIRICISM
The Empiricist Thesis:
We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other
than sense experience.
Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the
Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis.
Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori,
dependent upon sense experience.
Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept
thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our
only source of ideas.
They reject the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis.
Since reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give
us superior knowledge.
Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of Reason thesis, though they
need not.
The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge.
It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience.
PHENOMENALISM
It is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in
themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g.
redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space.
It holds that objects are dependent upon our perceptions of them.
They are bundles of sense-data situated in time and space.
To believe that a material or physical object exists is to believe that sense-
data of various sorts have been experienced, are being experienced, or would
be experienced under certain specifiable conditions.
Objects are permanent possibilities of perception.