A fine sentiment and we can all picture ourselves astride some barricade heroically wielding a flag emblazoned with the word 'truth'. But 'truth' is unfortunately rarely a simple and easily definable 'thing'. Questions such as 'Whose truth ?' , 'Matters to whom ?' and 'Tested how ?' all arise when the audience for some explication of 'a truth' is hetergengous, is possessed of multiple competing perspectives and shares no central binding philosophy or community of interest.
Truth, as opposed to 'honesty (which we might define as truth about onself), is rarely a useful starting point if one wants to influence others. Human beings are far more likely accept a nuanced and gradualist introduction to an alternate view though of course Pauline convertions do happen, but they invariably produce zeolots whose contributions lead to the ossification of divisions rather than any breakdown of barriers. Truth tends to demand that someone is 'right' and someone else is wrong - the situation is instantly oppositional and the someone who the 'truth' demands must be 'wrong', has nowhere to go other than either concede defeat or contest the 'truth'. Even if one is in a 'winning' position, it may not be beneficial to create a situation where someone becomes, or is maintained as, an enemy. Giving the 'opposition' an 'out' is often by far the most effective way of reducing opposition, long term. This is especially the case where one is 'fighting' from a position of 'weakness', because one's chances of total victory are very small; an honourable truce, although it may be far less emotionally satisfying, may be by far the best outcome.
IVI
Truth, as opposed to 'honesty (which we might define as truth about onself), is rarely a useful starting point if one wants to influence others. Human beings are far more likely accept a nuanced and gradualist introduction to an alternate view though of course Pauline convertions do happen, but they invariably produce zeolots whose contributions lead to the ossification of divisions rather than any breakdown of barriers. Truth tends to demand that someone is 'right' and someone else is wrong - the situation is instantly oppositional and the someone who the 'truth' demands must be 'wrong', has nowhere to go other than either concede defeat or contest the 'truth'. Even if one is in a 'winning' position, it may not be beneficial to create a situation where someone becomes, or is maintained as, an enemy. Giving the 'opposition' an 'out' is often by far the most effective way of reducing opposition, long term. This is especially the case where one is 'fighting' from a position of 'weakness', because one's chances of total victory are very small; an honourable truce, although it may be far less emotionally satisfying, may be by far the best outcome.
IVI
My response is:
I know I can't measure an inch absolutely, but I can get to within a reasonable tolerance range.
How close can I get to measuring an inch? Give me some gage blocks, a granite block, and a height gage and I can get you to within +/-.0002" all day long.
Lets keep it simple.
The truth is being factually and historically accurate as reasonably possible given the tools at our disposal. The antitheses of deception. Honesty.
The truth is pure and excludes manufactured consensus, psychological parsing of words, retraction, the elephant in the room, and ALL other man-made artificial constraints.