The Coherence Theory of Truth

[@titillation]

Thank you for free education.

[@yoveeditors5502]

I must say I have never heard of this theory thank you for the lecture I'll have to read on it to get the gist of it

[@consumeentertainment9310]

Very Entertaining !!! I love the turtle all the way down part a bit too much 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@monthlysurvey]

This was absolutely incredible. Thank you!

[@alevieirareis]

Mr. Bonevac, your channel is amazing. Keep it, please ! :)

[@djmartian7171]

Amazing, thank you Dr. Bonevac

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Would have liked to hear how the web/system approach would play out in the "Snow is white" example. Good presentation that extends beyond what other presenters explain with the Coherence Theory. Thanks.

[@e45127]

Your lectures make it easier to cope with all that is said without any intention of clarification.

[@robertdegruchy160]

Could one be more specific about the fact that snow is white on order to avoid the infinite regress?...perhaps we could describe it in terms of its properties including its whiteness or even contrast it with snow that is nonwhite(I live in a Canadian city- I know how it becomes that state! It seems to me that would be closer to the coherence theory of describing a. st ate of affairs and a"vicious" condition. Of course I am describing contingencies involving the subject snow. Excellent lectures!

[@anilkashyap1388]

very nice explaination

[@feisalmohamed9797]

Lovely videos!

[@johnstarrett7754]

I don't see how there can be a comprehensive theory. If it exists, it is a subset of all that exists that expresses all that exists.

[@matthiasfurst4818]

The cat is a correspondence theorist 👌🏻😂😂😂 Well played!

[@kylesty6728]

Thank you so much for your videos.

[@alejandrinoalac7836]

Thanks for this very informative and insightful discussion sir! If it is okay, I just want to know if the idea of getting the context e.g., of a story is related to this theory of coherence. How it is so if in case related? Thanks in advance!

[@lifeguylifeworld]

Thanks Professor Bonevac!

[@virtuosic4883]

Please please please do identity theory next!!

[@naserrahman1877]

0:56 F.H.Bradley 1:40 facts as 'vicious abstractions' 1:47 a sentence is true if it coheres with a comprehensive theory of the world

[@hanskung3278]

Really!? "Snow is white if and only if snow is white"? The correspondence theory is really profound.

[@websurfer352]

It’s true that we need to understand the whole in order to understand the constituent parts!! But truth is not synonymous with understanding or comprehension?? If you have a device of front of you which you cannot explain?? You do not know how it works or even what it is?? Does that not knowing what a thing is or how it works preclude the fact that it exists in the table you are seated in?? If you have a book in Chinese which you cannot read much less understand, does that preclude its existence?? And if truth is what is?? Then the statement: I have a book in my possession that I cannot understand!! Would be true!!! Very true!!

[@acceptable1000]

Perhaps in this case existence is relative.

[@neilnelson79]

I am thinking we should put Bradley in a snowball fight where he can get buried in snow while he is pondering how all this connects to his larger theory and then, after a while when he gets done pondering, he can dig himself out. The idea of holistic vs analytic seems a false dichotomy. We speak at the level of particulars relevant for our points. Those particulars will naturally extend to other items and relations to some degree, but how far that extension goes depends on its relevance, and the farther that extension goes the less relevant it will be. Not seeing we need a comprehensive theory of the world to make assertions that a person from limited experience would hold as true. I suppose it would be possible to extend ordinary assertions to the whole of reality with some effort, but I do not think we would say that a person ignorant of the whole of reality would not be able to make truthful statements that were entirely sensible from their and their listeners' limited understanding. The idea that we have to consider different shades of white upon saying snow is white and that there is some kind of infinite regress assumes a person would accept an assertion as true merely upon being presented with that assertion and the additional assertion that the person making the assertion, or those he had depended on, had already applied the correspondence mapping. As I noted in my comment on the prior Correspondence Theory video, there is only a correspondence when you actually do it yourself, upon which time the particular shade of snow would be immediate without pondering the different shades of white, and without an infinite regress.

[@meowwwww6350]

NICE

[@neoepicurean3772]

I was lying in bed last night trying to think of ways around Parfit's 'repugnant conclusion' and I thought about it in terms of relativity - is it even possible to compare utility between possible worlds? From which point is this observer observing? Surely they cannot judge a relative concept like utility without having a concept of utility?

[@sabyasachisenapati3619]

I guess , more important in understanding the coherence theory is how important is the theory rather than how important is coherence..😁

[@koalasquare2145]

Is this linked to antirealism? This seems like the natural conclusion.

[@NorthenTasawwuf]

Yes, because a strict coherence disregards the need or demand for correspondence. It's however compatible with pragmatism (e.g. Quine). The strict adherence to coherence alone tends to be necessarily related to subjectivism and relativism. Think Baron von Münchhausen lifting himself (and his horse) up by the hair - bootstrapping. In my own view. I think that all the various truth theories are necessary together, but in different stages, in order to get the most comprehensive and least erroneous view. Sort of this way: correspondence, coherence, pragmatism and consensus.

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

It doesn't have to be. Everyone acknowledges this problem of infinite regress / circularity / lack of justication for any position in epistemology in general. Yet that doesn't prevent virtually all philosophers, empiricists and idealists alike from being realists. The anti realist would say "because we don't have absolute certainty, I don't believe in external reality". That's their core reasoning.

[@jzy3621]

This sounds alot like structuralist thougt about linguistics

[@Google_Censored_Commenter]

Why didn't you mention that the coherence theory of truth, or really, any theory at all, runs into the infinite regress / circularity problem? You presented it as if the coherence theory somehow solves it, but it doesn't. No matter what the coherence theorist answers to the question "how do you know snow is white?", their answer is just yet another sentence you can keep prodding "why?" at.

[@ShepherdsHook]

Seems to drift to circular reasoning, and yes regress.

[@averagejohnson3985]

Point guard. *Shows Hedo Turkoglu (a shooting guard*

[@Renegen1]

you spoke for 20 minutes and did not explain at all how the two theories differ.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Correspondence theory: Truth is correspondence to a fact. Coherence theory: There are no "facts." Truth is coherence with a comprehensive theory of the world. That happens in the first two minutes.

[@bumlace]

Thank you