Criteria of truth
In epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims. They are tools of verification. Understanding a philosophy's criteria of truth is fundamental to a clear evaluation of that philosophy. This necessity is driven by the varying, and conflicting, claims of different philosophies. The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own. An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood. Not all criteria are equally valid. Some standards are sufficient, while others are questionable. The criteria listed represent those most commonly used by scholars and the general public.[1]
Authority
The opinions of those with significant experience, highly trained or possessing an advanced degree are often considered a form of proof. Their knowledge and familiarity within a given field or area of knowledge command respect and allow their statements to be criteria of truth. A person may not simply declare themselves an authority, but rather must be properly qualified. Despite the wide respect given to expert testimony, it is not an infallible criterion. For example, multiple authorities may conflict in their claims and conclusions.[2]
Coherence
Coherence refers to a consistent and overarching explanation for all facts. To be coherent, all pertinent facts must be arranged in a consistent and cohesive fashion as an integrated whole. The theory which most effectively reconciles all facts in this fashion may be considered most true. Coherence is the most potentially effective test of truth because it most adequately addresses all elements. The main limitation lies not in the standard, but in the human inability to acquire all facts of an experience. Only an omniscient mind could be aware of all of the relevant information. A scholar must accept this limitation and accept as true the most coherent explanation for the available facts. Coherence is difficult to dispute as a criterion of truth, since arguing against coherence is validating incoherence, which is inherently illogical.[3]
Consensus gentium
Consistency
Correspondence
Custom
Emotions
Instinct
Intuition
Majority rule
Naive Realism
Pragmatic
Revelation
Time
Tradition
Footnotes
- ↑ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Pp 3-4. Barnes and Noble Books (1993). ISBN 15566192714.
- ↑ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Pp 8-9. Barnes and Noble Books (1993). ISBN 15566192714.
- ↑ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Pp 10-11. Barnes and Noble Books (1993). ISBN 15566192714.