Theories of Truth.

In class today, we started discussing the correspondence theory of truth versus the coherence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that a statement or idea is true if it corresponds with the way the world is, or is perceived to be. For example, Johnson gave the example in class of the statement "The cat is on the mat." The statement is only true if the cat is, indeed, on the mat - the claim is in accordance with the world. However, if at that particular moment the cat is not on the mat, then the statement is false.

On the other hand, the coherence theory of truth states that a statement or idea is true based on whether or not it coheres to other statements surrounding it. An example of this would be that my coffee cup is brown because it looks like the same color as the tree bark outside, and the tree bark is known to be brown because it is true. Therefore, my coffee cup is brown.

However, both the correspondence theory and the coherence theory are flaws in that they are both based off of our perspectives or how we perceive things, especially in the case of colors. One color to one person may not necessarily be the same color to another (what if they're colorblind?) so the system is flawed. Furthermore, in the case of the correspondence theory, optical illusions such as looking at a straw through a glass of water may distort our reality and distort truth.

My question is, "Where is the line drawn between critical thinking and skepticism? How does one think critically without being too much of a skeptic?"