Philosophical Studies

, Volume 159, Issue 1, pp 89–105

Is pluralism about truth inherently unstable?

Article

Abstract

Although it’s sometimes thought that pluralism about truth is unstable—or, worse, just a non-starter—it’s surprisingly difficult to locate collapsing arguments that conclusively demonstrate either its instability or its inability to get started. This paper exemplifies the point by examining three recent arguments to that effect. However, it ends with a cautionary tale; for pluralism may not be any better off than other traditional theories that face various technical objections, and may be worse off in facing them all.

Keywords

Truth Pluralism Property Instability Scope problem Reductive analysis Uniformity assumption Disjunctivism 

References

  1. Acton, H. (1935). The correspondence theory of truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 35, 177–194.Google Scholar
  2. Boas, G. (1921). An analysis of certain theories of truth. University of California Publications in Philosophy, 2, 187–290.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. (1974). On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dodd, J. (2002). Recent work on truth. Philosophical Books, 43, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dodd, J. (2011). Deflationism trumps pluralism! In N. Pedersen & C. D. Wright (Eds.), Alethic pluralism: Current debates. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dorsey, D. (2006). A coherence theory of truth in ethics. Philosophical Studies, 117, 493–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorsey, D. (2010). Truth and error in morality. In C. D. Wright & N. Pedersen (Eds.), New waves in truth (pp. 235–248). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. (2008). How to solve the problem of mixed conjunctions. Analysis, 68, 143–149.Google Scholar
  9. Haack, S. (2005). The unity of truth and the plurality of truths. Principia, 9, 87–110.Google Scholar
  10. Haack, S. (2008). The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 32, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinemann, F. (1956). Are there only two kinds of truth? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 16, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horton, M., & Poston, T. (2011). Functionalism about truth and the metaphysics of reduction. Acta Analytica.Google Scholar
  13. Horwich, P. (1996). Realism minus truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56, 877–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lynch, M. (2000). Alethic pluralism and the functionalist theory of truth. Acta Analytica, 15, 195–214.Google Scholar
  15. Lynch, M. (Ed.). (2001). A functionalist theory of truth. In The nature of truth: Classic and contemporary perspectives (pp. 723–749). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lynch, M. (2004). Truth and multiple realizability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 384–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynch, M. (2005). Functionalism and our folk theory of truth. Synthèse, 145, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Millgram, E. (2000). Coherence: The price of the ticket. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Næss, A. (1938). Common-sense and truth. Theoria, 4, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Connor, D. J. (1975). The correspondence theory of truth. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  21. Patterson, D. (2004). Correspondence and metaphysics: Andrew Newman’s The correspondence theory of truth. Inquiry, 47, 490–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patterson, D. (2010). Truth as conceptually primative. In C. D. Wright & N. Pedersen (Eds.), New waves in truth (pp. 13–29). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Pedersen, N. (2006). What can the problem of mixed inferences teach us about alethic pluralism? Monist, 89, 103–117.Google Scholar
  24. Pedersen, N. (2010). Stabilizing alethic pluralism. Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 92–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pettit, P. (1996). Realism and truth: A comment on Crispin Wright’s Truth and objectivity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56, 883–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sher, G. (1998). On the possibility of a substantive theory of truth. Synthèse, 117, 133–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sher, G. (2004). In search of a substantive theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 101, 5–36.Google Scholar
  28. Sher, G. (2005). Functional pluralism. Philosophical Books, 46, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sher, G. (2011). Forms of correspondence. In N. Pedersen & C. D. Wright (Eds.), Truth and pluralism: Current debates. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, E., & Medin, D. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Thagard, P., & Verbeurgt, K. (1998). Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 22, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright, C. D. (2005). On the functionalization of pluralist approaches to truth. Synthèse, 145, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright, C. D. (2010). Truth, Ramsification, and the pluralist’s revenge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright, C. D., & Pedersen, N. (Eds.). (2010). Truth, monism, pluralism, correspondence. In New waves in truth (pp. 205–217). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Wright, C. J. G. (1996). Précis to truth and objectivity and response to commentators. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56, 863–868, 911–941.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, C. J. G. (1998). Truth: A traditional debate reviewed. Canadian Journal of Philosophy (suppl.), 24, 31–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations