Is it a perception only
I need to know what is truth?
As george Constanzis said , if you believe it , its the truth.
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder , I believe truth is in the eye of the beholder too , .and true , it is a perception .
Truth , to many people is what they want to believe , regardless of facts that may prove or indicate otherwise.
There have been some threads on this, or similar to this, in the past. They seem to end up being duels between sbf and Cofty.
My 2c worth:
"Truths" can be divided into "absolute truths" and "perceptions". Some people confuse the issue by mixing terminology.
On any particular issue there is an "absolute truth", independent of what one may or may not observe. However, in very many situations, we have no way of knowing "absolute truths". We have to rely on our observations and other limited information. These allow us to interpret some things to be correct and others to be incorrect. They are only perceptions, but they are clearly true relative to alternative propositions. I have heard them called "relative truths".
Some people will point out an example where a "relative truth" (ie a perception mis-labelled as a "truth") was not truth, and highlight the conundrum. There is no conundrum, it is just word games.
Example: On another thread, sbf used the analogy of an earthworm's view of world. As far as the earthworm is concerned, the world is flat. That would be a true statement as far as the worm is concerned. Well, actually, no. It is just the worm's perception.
We perceive the world to be round, which is also a perception (or relative truth). This probably matches the absolute truth, in this case. However, if an alien from the 6th dimension looked at the Earth and could see that in fact the Earth was not round, that would not mean that the absolute truth had changed. It would mean our perception was wrong.
I will stop, now.
Truth is rare.
What we have is "Working hypotheses", which we call truth until reality forces us to change.
Webster tells us that truth is “that which is true,” but that isn't very helpful. I could make a statement and say that it is a true statement, but that just leads to questions such as these; What is a true statement? Is it different from a statement made truthfully? Such highly abstract discussions will get us nowhere.
Some feel that truth is subjective and personal, that one man’s truth comes from his inner feelings and
thinking, his viewpoint. Many add that truth is relative, only defined by its comparison to something else. This would be similar to the abstract question, “What is beauty?” In subjective truth, different persons would
have different truths. Outside of philosophy, truth is not generally thought of in subjective terms. Truth is determined by existing realities, based on facts independent of the mind. Most people think that truth is objective. Some go so far as to say that only absolute truth matters."Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts.
Even here, truth can be a perception. Absolute truth requires an absolute standard. If I make the objective statement that “Earth is the third planet out from the sun,” it seems like a fixed unalterable fact. But another person could ask, “Whose definition of ‘planet’ are you using?” “Is it possible that there are other undiscovered planets between the earth and sun?” “When you say ‘out from the sun,’ do you mean in distance or a straight line?”
But to the original question, the definition of objective "truth" is generally that which is accepted by the vast majority as factual. Not a simple majority, but the VAST majority. So it's mostly boring uncontroversial facts. As soon as someone objects to the subject or the conclusions, they also decide to question whether something is "truth." Examples are things like global warming, or facts that fly in the face of beliefs.