Truth

Truth ** Correspondence theory ** states that a statement is true if it expresses what appears to be the case. It’s based on perception. The strength of this theory is that it is the closest to reality without involvement. The weakness is the possibility of perceptional error. The limit is access to event. Image that you are assigned an essay about the big game, so you decide to be a correspondent. The strength of your statements will come from your presence at the big game during which time you will perceive what is occurring. If you commit a perceptual error that will likely become part of your statement. If you miss the event all together, then you’re out of luck.
 * Truth ** is the condition of a statement whereby it expresses what is genuine or real. Truth theories answer the question: How do we determine whether or not a statement is true? See Certitude
 * Coherence theory ** states that a statement is true if it expresses what a knowledgeable source holds to be the case. It’s based on authority attributed to the source. The strength of the theory lies in its easy access to knowledge. The weakness in that the knowing tends to be superficial. The limit occurs when new knowledge invalidates what is already held to true. You missed the big game. So you must rely on other sources for your essay. The local newspaper offers an authoritative source. It takes much less effort to access the story on their web site than to actually attend the game. Of course, your knowledge of the game lacks the richness that would have come if you attended. After your essay is complete, you read an essay my your classmate, Maynard and that sounds like a report on an entirely different game. Now what are you going to do?
 * Pragmatic ** ** theory ** state that a statement is true if it expresses what experience says is the case. It’s based on participation in the event. The strength of this theory is that it has the feel of truth because it is validate by the memory of a participant. The weakness can be too great a degree of subjectivity. The limitation can be a lack of experience, which can cause the participant to not understand what happened. Maynard played in the big game. His report is convincing because it conveys the excitement of the event, but tends to place too much emphasis on his contribution. Maynard is new to the team, so he doesn’t quite understand what it takes for the team to win.
 * || ** Correspondence ** || ** Coherence ** || ** Pragmatic ** ||
 * Based || Perception || Authority || Participation in the event ||
 * Strength || Closest to event w/out participation || Easy access to knowledge || Feels true; self-confirming ||
 * Weakness || Perceptual error || Superficial || Too Subjective ||
 * Limit || Access to event || Conflicting sources || Lack of experience ||