ABSTRACT
So far as the names themselves suggest anything, the Correspondence theory would seem so obviously correct that one could be pardoned for wondering how it could ever have been doubted. According to it, a judgment is correct or a proposition judged is true:
12 6 Theory of Knowledge if there is a fact corresponding to it, false if there is not. According to the Coherence theory, the truth of a judgment consists in its coherence within a system of judgments. Common sense seems to support Correspondence, and would cite the usages of language as evidence that the view is widely, if not universally, held. We say that a man's belief is correct if it agrees, or conforms, or accords, or corresponds with the facts, all of the above being phrases suggesting that truth is (a) a relation of some kind between what a man judges, on the one hand, and the facts of the case, on the other; and (b) a relation of a special sort, which we try to indicate by using names such as 'agree', 'correspond', etc.
