Where does correspondence collide?

The view that a statement or belief is true when it matches the way things actually are and false when it does not. Aristotle stated the core of it in the Metaphysics (around 350 BCE): to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. Tarski's 1944 The semantic conception of truth gave the modern, formal refinement, tying the truth of a sentence to the facts it states. Here correspondence is a relation between language and the world, and it is unrelated to a rule linking quantum and classical physics, a bias in judging other people, or a parallel between school and workplace.[1][2]

Unit

One truth-bearer (a statement, belief, or proposition) judged against the facts

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Assessed by philosophical argument and formal definitions of truth, not by empirical measurement

A rule stating that the predictions of quantum theory must agree with those of classical physics in the limit where quantum numbers are large, so that the older theory emerges as a special case of the newer one. Bohr introduced the idea and its name in his 1920 paper Über die Serienspektra der Elemente, and developed it further in his 1923 paper on applying quantum theory to atomic structure. Here correspondence is a constraint of agreement between two physical theories at a boundary, and it has nothing to do with truth as a match to fact, a bias in social judgment, or the structure of schooling.[3][4]

Unit

One agreement condition between quantum and classical predictions at a limit

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Checked by taking the large quantum-number limit and comparing quantum results to their classical counterparts

The tendency to explain other people's actions by their stable character while underweighting the situation that shaped them. Jones and Davis coined the language of correspondent inference in their 1965 chapter From acts to dispositions, describing how observers infer that an act corresponds to an inner trait, and Gilbert and Malone's 1995 The correspondence bias named and reviewed the error of doing this too readily. Here correspondence is an assumed match between conduct and disposition in the mind of an observer, not a rule linking two physical theories, a matching of words to facts, or a parallel between school and work.[5][6]

Unit

One attribution: an observer's judgment linking an act to a disposition

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Measured in experiments by how far observers infer disposition despite known situational constraints

The claim that the social relations of schooling mirror the social relations of the workplace, so that schools reproduce the hierarchy, discipline, and motivation that employers expect rather than simply transmitting knowledge. Bowles and Gintis set out this correspondence principle in their 1976 book Schooling in Capitalist America. Here correspondence is a structural parallel between two institutions, education and production, and it does not name a match between statement and fact, a limit relating quantum and classical physics, or a bias in judging individuals.[7]

Unit

One structural parallel between a feature of schooling and a feature of work

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Assessed by comparing the social relations of schools and workplaces, often through sociological and statistical analysis