In: Psychology
Select ONE of the following questions and write a brief (at least 5 sentences, but less than one page) essay response:
Is the correspondence theory of truth (as discussed by Russell) plausible? Do you think it adequately conveys what we ordinarily mean by “truth” or is something missing?
Is James’ criterion of truth as the success of an idea in practice clear? What problems, if any, do you see with it? Does it seem a better alternative than the correspondence theory? Explain why or why not.
I do not agree with the theory only because of two things - intentions and religious thinking.
Truth has to be seen along with the intentions, context etc. Otherwise, the visible reality may be a skewed one. Both the Intentions of the person and the observer are important. A person's actions may appear that he is lying but he can be actually telling the truth. Also, the observer's understanding of the reality based on his beliefs also comes into play. Example - A person who is a chronic latecomer produces all lies to his employer for his mistakes daily. One day, when he is late for some genuine unavoidable reason, the employer would still see him as a liar. The reality is distorted to him and the person's intentions go missed.
Religious beliefs - I just think about miracles. These are uncommon in the real world and the things actually happened may be perceived as a lie because it never happened to anybody they knew.