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.
