These theories are motivated by diverse concerns and proposed accounts so different from each other that one wonder if they seek to explain the same phenomenon. Coherence theory The coherence theory of truth states that a statement is considered true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs. This is basically saying that a belief is false if it contradicts other beliefs that are held to be true. The coherence theories in general, states that truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other.
How do we know things? There are different ways of knowing; through emotions, feelings, sense perceptions etc. We use logic, deduction, and induction, to reach conclusions we think are true. Conclusions reached in this way are considered more certain than sense perceptions on their own. In the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built originally upon a organization of sense perceptions, then the arguments what are being considered.
* Is the sample representative? Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Deductive reasoning is dependent on its premises. That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion.
Do they automatically become useless? We gain knowledge through sense perception, reason, language and emotion. Every one of these determinants can be influenced by personal background, feelings, incomplete methods of reasoning and so on. As definition of knowledge is justified true belief, to accept something as knowledge, i.e. to claim to know it, statement must be considered true (objective), one must believe it (subjective) and there must be justification why the person knows it – way of knowing.
This theory uses inductive reasoning rather than the more common deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is not the sole claim for proving validity. An inductive argument proceeds from a beginning statement to a conclusion. The truth of the initial statement may not imply the truth of the concluding statement only that the concluding statement can be true. Inductive arguments lead attention to specific areas of reality.
It is evident that there is a fundamental tension between the two world views. However, it would be incorrect to reject one view completely in favor of the other. So, while recognizing the post modern view that truth is unknowable and that we cannot be absolutely certain of our knowledge, I would also like to acknowledge the importance of human dignity. I would also like to state that some of the ethical tenets like Kantian Categorical Imperatives have their basis in human dignity. In other words, we could discover the best in science and social science on the strength of western world view.
For example, in the book in chapter 2 on page 58, a statement is made that’’ two plus two equals four’’. This statement is called a declarative sentence, which basically means that you are claiming what you said is true. But it also says that you can say that ‘’it is not the case, that two plus two doesn’t equal four’’. By saying this that’s states that the first statement is false and our new statement is the truth and by us doing this the speaker contradicts himself. So basically to sum up what I am trying to say is whenever someone tells you that something is true, that they’re stating a fact, but if and when they turn around and make a whole different statement about what they said in the first claim by denying it the second claim , then that person/persons are contradicting them self.
This is because in deduction, conclusions are made through reasoning information which is given and known to be true. The problem arises when the premises known to be true are in fact faulty. This leads to the misleading of conclusions and or the gaining of flawed knowledge, (Stewart 433). For example to reflect
The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, what a fact is, and what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true." I agree with the quote cited above as truth for one is not necessary the same for another. However the term must be defined in order to proceed further.
Moore believes this is a legitimate argument based on his criteria for a proof. The first requirement is that the premises must be different from the conclusion. The second requirement is that the premises must be demonstrated. The third requirement is that the conclusion must follow the premises. Moore also notes that there may other requirements that he does not even know that could be needed to make a proof.