At 09:11 AM 20/05/99 -0600, David McFadzean wrote:
>The truth of a representation is a measure of how well it does
I might as well chime in with my $0.02 worth on this topic. I agree in
essence and detail, with David's remarks above. As a matter of fact, when I
analyse how I think, and why I think of certain things, I find that my mind
uses coherence and correspondence as tools.
>its job as a model (correspondence theory). How well does the
>map describe the territory? How well does the portrait capture
>the essence of the subject? This is a metaphysical definition of
>truth. However we can only judge the truth of a representation
>by how well it fits with other representations we believe to be true
>(coherence theory). Does the assertion contradict anything else we
>think is true? What if our interpretation of the purpose and intent
>of the representation is mistaken? This is the epistemological
>definition truth. I hope I have shown that the correspondence
>theory and coherence theory are orthogonal, and in fact,
>complementary.
Dan