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.