Teori - Teori Kebenaran sebagai Fondasi Etika Keilmuan

Authors

  • Cecilia Indah Hapsari Universitas Negeri Malang
  • Agung Winarno Universitas Negeri Malang
  • Subagyo Subagyo Universitas Negeri Malang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61132/jbpakk.v3i4.1676

Keywords:

Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, Scientific Ethics, Scientific Integrity, Theory of Truth

Abstract

The background of this research stems from the need to reexamine the position of theories of truth in the philosophy of science as a basis for the formation of scientific ethics amid the increasingly complex development of modern science. The concept of truth not only functions as an epistemological guideline in determining the validity of knowledge, but also has a normative dimension that influences the integrity, honesty, and responsibility of scientists in the research process. Based on this, this study aims to analyze various theories of truth, including correspondence, coherence, pragmatism, consensus, performativity, deflationism, and foundationalism, and to explain the relevance of each approach to the formation of scientific ethics. This study uses a literature review method with a descriptive-analytical approach through a systematic search of relevant journals, books, and academic sources, which are then analyzed through thematic synthesis to obtain a comprehensive conceptual understanding. The findings show that each theory of truth has a unique contribution to building scientific ethics. Correspondence emphasizes the importance of empirical verification, coherence emphasizes rational consistency, pragmatism highlights theoretical functionality, consensus places scientific dialogue as the legitimization of knowledge, performativity connects truth with action, the deflationary approach emphasizes clarity of language, and foundationalism provides a stable epistemic foundation. The implications of this research show that the integration of these various theories can form a more robust, holistic, and adaptive framework of scientific ethics to the demands of modern scientific practice. This framework is expected to strengthen an honest, transparent, and accountable scientific culture, while opening opportunities for the development of epistemology-based research ethics guidelines in the future.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahn, J., & Kim, H. (2024). Consensus, transparency, and ethical foundations of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Ethics and Society, 8(1), 15-29.

Aristotle. (1998). Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.

Asiah, S., Nursalim, M., Masitoh, S., Pesantren, U., Darul, T., Jombang, U., & Surabaya, U. N. (2023). 1, 2, 3 1. 4(3), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.51178/jsr.v4i3.1662

Chisholm, R. M. (1982). The foundations of knowing. University of Minnesota Press: Vol. Minneapolis.

Choi, Y. (2020). Pragmatism in evidence-based policy: Truth as what works. Policy & Philosophy Review, 12(2), 101-118.

Faradi, A. A. (2019). Teori-Teori Kebenaran Dalam Filsafat (Urgensi Dan Signifikasinya Dalam Upaya Pemberantasan Hoaxs). Kontemplasi: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Ushuluddin, 7(1), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.21274/kontem.2019.7.1.97-114

Green, T. (2017). Consensus formation and the social justification of scientific knowledge. Journal of Social Epistemology (Issue 12).

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1. Beacon Press: Vol. Boston.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1997). Phenomenology of spirit. Oxford University Press: Vol. Oxford.

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Longmans, Green & Co.: Vol. New York. https://doi.org/10.1037/10851-000

Johnson, R. (2022). Epistemic accountability and the correspondence theory of truth. Open Journal of Scientific Integrity, 4(3), 55-70.

Kaelin, M. (2018). Pragmatism and the problem-solving view of truth. Journal of Philosophical Research, 43, 55-72.

Klein, R. A. (2023). Reproducibility as performative scientific integrity. Open Science Framework Reports, 8(1), 1-25.

Littlejohn, C. (2018). Basic beliefs and epistemic justification. Journal of Philosophical Inquiry, 41(2), 110-125.

Lopez, M. (2020). Peer review and scientific consensus. Open Journal of Philosophy, 10(4), 245-260.

McIntyre, L. (2018). Post-truth. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001

Miller, S. (2021). Correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism: A unified theory of truth. International Review of Epistemology, 8(1), 1-20.

Moher, D. (2019). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3736/jcim20090918

Mulia, J. G. (2024). 123 1, 2, 3. 15(2), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.61132/arjuna.v3i1.1408

Mustika Dewi, M., & Salminawati. (2022). Teori Kebenaran Berdasarkan Perspektif Filsafat dan Sains Islam. Journal Of Social Research, 1(4), 254-260. https://doi.org/10.55324/josr.v1i4.83

Neta, R. (2023). Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Nur, I. D., P. Ola, S., & Pahmi, S. (2024). Peran Filsafat Ilmu Tentang Konsep Teori Kebenaran Ilmiah. Jurnal BELAINDIKA (Pembelajaran Dan Inovasi Pendidikan), 6(3), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.52005/belaindika.v6i3.281

Owens, J. (2018). Scientific performativity and the enactment of truth in research practice. Journal of Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 140-156.

Peirce, C. S., James, W., & Dewey, J. (2019). The Different Theories of Truth Three Brothers (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James And John Dewey). 4778, 319-326.

Price, H. (2019). Deflationism and the function of truth in scientific discourse. Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 34(2), 55-70.

Pritchard, D. (2016). Epistemic foundationalism and the regress problem. Synthese, 193(8), 2389-2405.

Purwadarminta. (2023). Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. https://balaiyanpus.jogjaprov.go.id/opac/detail-opac?id=36052&utm_source

Resnik, D. B. (2015). Scientific research and ethical decision making: Coherence and justification. Accountability in Research, 22(3), 123-138.

Salil, H., Murtadlo, J., Artikel, I., History, A., Addres, E., & Ilmiah, T. K. (2025). Teori pengetahuan dan kebenaran ilmiah perspektif filsafat ilmu. 88-97. https://doi.org/10.20885/tullab.vol7.iss1.art6

Silalahi Y.; Situmorang, J., D. E. . G. (2022). Kebenaran dalam perspektif pragmatisme modern. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 5(2), 145-160.

Simons, D. J. (2020). The replication crisis and the performative nature of scientific claims. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1260-1271.

Smith, J. (2020). The correspondence theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy and Logic, 15(2), 100-115.

Tremblay, M. (2021). Ethical foundations of scientific practices. Journal of Research Ethics, 17(2), 45-60.

Ulfa, D. M. (2024). Ilmu pengetahuan. 1(6), 399-405.

Vickers, P. (2018). Understanding scientific truth: A pluralist perspective. Philosophy Compass, 13(12), 1-15.

Vraga L., E. K. . B. (2020). Defining misinformation and its linguistic properties. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 353-367.

Walker, R. (2019). Coherence theories of epistemic justification. Philosophical Studies Review, 45(2), 67-84.

Xu H., L. . Z. (2023). Applied pragmatism in educational research: Truth, action, and usefulness. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(1), 45-60.

Yosephus, C. (2020). Kebenaran dalam perspektif deflasioner: Sebuah kajian filsafat bahasa. In Kanisius: Vol. Jakarta.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-26

How to Cite

Hapsari, C. I., Agung Winarno, & Subagyo Subagyo. (2025). Teori - Teori Kebenaran sebagai Fondasi Etika Keilmuan . Jurnal Budi Pekerti Agama Kristen Dan Katolik, 3(4), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.61132/jbpakk.v3i4.1676

Similar Articles

1 2 3 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.