Ch6

Chapter 6 Responses

The correspondence theory states that the truth is an agreement between proposition and fact.

For the record, I don't believe that anything can ever be proven as a fact due to the abnormalities of the human perception. Since just saying that through this entire response paper would be boring, I will take a less extreme view. The correspondence theory is a very plausible theory on what makes the truth true. To say "This paper is white" would be true (under the correspondence theory) because the paper is, indeed white. Therefore, if there is such things as truth and fact then the correspondence theory is a good way of determining them.

The coherence theory states that the truth is formed by a related group of consistent statements.

This theory may be applicable in many situations, but there are also many situations in which this theory just doesn't work. The example cited in the book of geometry is a poor example since many parts of geometry don't work correctly under these standards. I recall a ninth grade geometry teacher proving (Using the coherence theory) that one plus one equals three. Every statement in the proof was true and all the statements were consistent with one another. The proof worked out perfectly, except for the answer was wrong. The coherence theory, therefore, doesn't work in all situations and should not, then, be considered to be a valid theory.

The pragmatic theory of truth states that a statement is true if it work when applied to the "real world".

This theory would seem to make the most sense of the three. You can say that something is true only if it corresponds to the real world (as in the correspondence theory) or that something is true if it can be proven using consistent and related statements (as in the coherence theory) but the only way something would really be true is if it works. You could say that gravity pulls things towards the center of the earth; you could even say that this is true because gravity does, indeed, pull you towards the center of the earth, or you could prove it using many different statements about the properties of gravity, but until you jump and gravity comes into effect, how can you really believe in it?

Many people believe that science is a method for deriving truth, possibly the only method.

I disagree with this idea. Science is based on the perceptions of a small group of people. As I've mentioned many times, I believe that one's perceptions cannot be trusted due to the myriad abnormalities our perception can give us. If a person cannot trust his own perceptions, how is he expected to trust the perceptions of a complete stranger, albeit a scientist? Not only do I think that science is not a reliable method for finding the truth, I don't think there is a method for truly finding truth due to the last of reliability in our perceptions. The pragmatic theory of truth is the closest theory that I can believe, since a person should take as the truth things that "work" in the real world. Still, even the pragmatic theory has its faults in that a person may perceive something to work when it really doesn't.

The instrumentalist view is that science is true only in that they enable us to predict the outcome of things and that all unobservable things literally do not exist.

This statement seems okay as far as the pragmatic view goes in that science can only be considered true in that it works. If science allows you to accurately predict things, then it is applicable and therefore true by the pragmatic view (which is the view I most closely subscribe). However, I do not agree with the second part of the statement, that all unobservable variables simply do not exist. This seems to contrast sharply with the rest of the view in that it is very un-pragmatic. The fact is: there is no possible way to say for certain whether or not quarks or electrons or any other unobservable things exist or not, so it seems pointless to claim one or the other.

The realist view believes that scientific theories are true or false in the literal sense, and that the unobservable entities (electrons, quarks) do exist.

I can't say that I disagree with this statement, though I highly doubt the probability of it. To say that a scientific theory is always true or always false is always a poor choice because there is usually an exception. I suppose it is possible for this to happen, though highly improbable. As for the unobservable entities, I claim pragmatism. I don't know whether or not they exist or not, and a scientist claiming their existence does very little to convince me of either. There is really no way for me to know for sure if molecules or atoms or electrons truly do exist. I can't observe them or sense them in any way; and even if I could, I can't trust my perceptions. Therefore, there is absolutely no possible way for me to know whether or not unobservable things exist or not. In fact, I don't think there is any possible way for me to know whether or not observable entities exist either, but that's different altogether.

The conceptual relativist view is that scientific theory is nothing more than an idea built on the concepts and ideas of scientists.

I can't find anything in this statement that conflicts with my perceived views on the truth, other than the fact that no knowledge is possible so the theory itself is defunct in that there's no way to know if true scientific theory is nothing more than an idea built on the concepts and ideas of scientists. To me, though, it seems far more plausible than the other two views on scientific truth. I found an example supporting this theory somewhere earlier in the book, where it said that it is impossible to observe an electron at it's natural state for, to observe it, you would need light and, as soon as light hits the electron, it moves to a different energy level. We may understand the concept of electron, natural state and energy level, but only because they have been explained to us by scientists. We see light simply as a visual thing (at least most of us) and scientists tell us that light actually contains energy, enough to move an electron. We understand the scientific terms only because the scientists who "invented" them have painstakingly explained them to us. What if electrons don't exist? Or energy levels? What if scientists just made these things up? It is this train of thought that makes conceptual relativism seem like a rather plausible idea.

Thomas Aquinas claims that the church, and only the church, has the ability to decide how to interpret the Bible.

I disagree with Thomas Aquinas on this issue. Personally, I believe the Bible should not be interpreted at all. I believe the Bible to be a work of fiction, written simply to keep people "in line" and in good behavior. To interpret a work of fiction and to base your life around it strikes me as ludicrous. Michael Chapman, the man who shot John Lennon was thought to be insane because he based his life after J.D. Salinger's The Catcher In The Rye. I don't see why this would be any different. I don't deny that some of the morals spoken of in the Bible could possibly be good, but I don't think anyone should build their lives around a work of fiction. As far as allowing the church to interpret the Bible: I don't think that it would be the responsibility of the church at all. If it is insisted that the Bible be interpreted (and it is) then let each individual interpret the Bible according to his/her views. Why let some institution decide what the Bible says is right and what it says is wrong?

Just a quick note here: I think the Bible was intentionally written to be vague; to have many interpretations. I don't think it was meant to have one set interpretation at all, but many, so that every culture to embrace Christianity can have their own set of rules, while still conforming to the Bible.

Wittgenstein believed that reality consisted purely of facts, both complex and simple.

I agree with Wittgenstein, to the extent that I don't know what reality consists of, but I think it may consist of facts. Wittgenstein claimed that reality does indeed consist of facts, and I'm only claiming that I don't know. I think that the chances of it are quite good though. If such a thing as reality does exist (and I believe it does, though I don't know for sure) that I think it would probably consist of pure facts. Unfortunately, I think that it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend a pure fact, so we may never know true reality.

Gadamer believes that the true interpretation of the Bible is one that conforms to our cultural values and prejudices.

As I said earlier, I don't think the Bible should be interpreted at all. I do, however, think that it's intended to be interpreted much like Gadamer's beliefs on it. As far as the Bible is concerned, a true interpretation would be one that fits the culture interpreting. However, as the truth is concerned, these interpretations might be far off.

And yes, I do know that in saying the Bible shouldn't be interpreted, I am interpreting it. I am quite aware of the irony.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws