In looking at the four theories of truth (correspondence, coherence, James's theory and Peirce's theory), the correspondence theory is the most defensible out of the four theories because it has the least amount of problems. In this essay I will first justify why the correspondence theory of truth is the soundest argument for what truth is. I will follow this up by explaining the faults of the remaining three theories and conclude the essay with a brief overview.
The correspondence theory of truth is simple to grasp; any idea that corresponds with reality is deemed true, and any idea that does not correspond is deemed false. This theory is composed of three parts: a claim somebody has made, a state of affairs and the relationship between the two objects. A person must make a claim and it either corresponds or does not with actuality, or the state of affairs. This belief is widely accepted, as it requires individuals to provide proof and scientific research to back up their claims. Our society bases our knowledge off of facts, which is why this theory is successful, yet also why this theory is flawed. The term fact is controversial because someone could be mislead to believe that a claim is a fact, when in actuality it is not. For example people used to believe the world was a flat surface, but this was disproved and science proved Earth was a sphere. This seems to be a large fault in the correspondence theory as something that is deemed to be true can actually be false. However finding new facts and discrediting old ones is a part of the correspondence theory in which the new fact is believed to be true and the old belief is now false. Another problem we can see in this theory comes when people make statements such as, "I am not telling the truth," or "What I am saying here is false." These are statements, with the capability of either being true or false, but if they are true because they correspond with actuality, then they are false.