Knowledge, Truth and Justification, and 6.2 What is Truth?

1. Explain why defining knowledge as “justified true belief” is not enough.

2. Explain the difference between foundationalism and coherentism- (Only explained in
the 12th edition).

3. Explain a problem with foundationalism and a problem with coherentism. (Only
explained in the 12th edition).

4. Which of the following can be justified beliefs? How would you justify them? As a
foundationalit or as a coherentist’? A priori or A posteriori? Explain. (Adapted from the
12th edition)

For section 6-2 (From the book, pp- 420-421)

1. ‘Aocording to Blanshard every “fact” is really just a bunch of beliefs you already
have about that kind of fact, and there is no such thing as a ‘pure’ fact that consists of
just the fact with no related beliefs. Do you think this claim is true? [Explain]- If not, can
you think of any fact that does not in the end come down to being a bundle of beliefs?‘
(Velasquez, 13 ed- p- 442).

2. Explain a problem with the correspondence theory of truth. (If some problem has
already been explained explain a different one).

3. Take some theory – perhaps in psychology, anthropology, economics, or history,
and put it to the coherence test [Say for instance, the theory of Evolution]. Does it
pass? Can you find an opposing theory that passes as well? What might you conclude
about the coherence theory of truth?

4. Take any claim from recent political controversial news, such as the claims of sexual
assault recently in the news, abuse of power by police officers over unarmed black
youths, or having to do with climate change or tax reform to name a few. Clearly
explain, step by step (as Brand Blanshard does in pages 441-442, Velasquez q3th
edition) how someone using the coherence theory of truth would argue for the
truthfulness of such claim?

5. Explain why the coherence theory of truth ultimately seems to rely on thecorrespondence theory. How would proponents of the coherence theory object to this
claim?

6. In opposition to the pragmatists and their theory of truth, critics charge, ‘But don’t
you see that you are encouraging us to see things as we would have them and not as
they are? ” Do you agree with this criticism?

7. What statement about yourself do you accept on pragnatic grounds? On the
grounds of coherence? On the grounds of correspondence with reality? Explain-

8. ‘A pluralistic theory of truth holds that each of the three theories of truth may be
used to understand what tmth means in different “domains of discourse’ The text
mentions different domains of discourse and suggests the theory of truth that might
apply to each- What are some domains of discourse (or kinds of knowledge) that are
not mentioned in the textbook? Explain which of the three theories of truth you think
would be the right theory to use to explain what truth means in those domains.‘
(Velasquez, 13 ed- p- 453).