Final answer:
Pragmatism, as proposed by philosophers like William James, emphasizes the practical application of ideas tested through experience. Logical empiricists contrast this view with a belief in objective verifiable truths. Pragmatism's focus on practical consequences can lead to a relativistic view of truth, where multiple and potentially conflicting truths can coexist, influenced by societal criteria for justification and power dynamics.
Step-by-step explanation:
When discussing pragmatism vs truth, one encounters the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, which was developed by thinkers like William James and later influenced by others such as Richard Rorty. This theory suggests that truth is determined by the practical efficacy of a belief in providing satisfactory results over a period, rather than corresponding to an objective reality. James argued that beliefs must be tested through experience to be validated. Pragmatism, as an approach to truth, regards the usefulness of an idea in practical terms as paramount.
Conversely, many logical empiricists and realists maintain that certain truths can be objectively verified independent of their practical consequences. The logical empiricist movement rested the truth of a proposition on its verification process. However, postmodern pragmatists like Rorty have questioned the notion of objective truth altogether, arguing that truth is a social construct validated by a group's criteria for justification.
The contention arises when one considers how to handle conflicting truths from different societies with differing criteria. In the pragmatist view, power dynamics often play a role in resolving these conflicts. Pragmatism has also been criticized for potentially leading to a relativistic view of truth, where contradictory beliefs can be held as true by different groups simultaneously. The theory's focus on the practical over the absolute may indeed prioritize pragmatism over an objective truth.