[Stunaep]

This was one of the interesting question a friend of mine was supposed to argue about on a nation-wide philosophics contest or something. Apparently he managed to get the third place. Funny that.

That aside, which of the three thruth theories do you prefer? For those who haven't taken 10th grade philosophy, for one or another odd reason, here's what Google sais about the three principal theories:

http://members.rogers.com/ccocos4328/Lecture7.htm

So, have at it. Don't forget to explain.

[Setekh]

I don't think any of the three are broad enough to encapsulate truth.

[an0n]

Pragmatic.

[kode]

it's all lies anyway, so what's the point?

except for mathematical truths. they are real.

[Joey_21]

there are many statements that we believe to be true for which there seem to be no corresponding facts:

There is no greatest prime number.

This is a fact and has a proof.

http://www.hermetic.ch/pns/proof.htm

[phreak]

too many words

[Jiggyhound]

true...

I went for correspondance

[mikhael]

Correspondance, of course. Only when statements are in accord with verifiable, provable facts can they be true.

[Black Wolf]

I gave up on these awhile ago and developed my own theory, but it'd take awhile to explain, and it scares the monkeys.

[Nico]

I prefer the one that is true

[J3Vr6]

pragmatic, IMO

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
I gave up on these awhile ago and developed my own theory, but it'd take awhile to explain, and it scares the monkeys.

Okay, so let's suppose  I want to scare some monkeys.