What Is Truth?

We use the word 'true' constantly, yet rarely stop to ask what we mean by it. That gap matters, because almost every skill in critical thinking assumes there is something for a claim to be true of. If truth is just whatever anyone happens to feel, then weighing evidence, checking sources, and reasoning carefully are pointless games. Getting clear on what 'true' means is what keeps the rest of clear thinking from collapsing.

It also matters because a slogan has spread: 'that may be true for you, but it's not true for me.' Sometimes that sentence is harmless — people are really talking about taste. Sometimes it quietly denies that shared facts exist at all. Being able to tell those two uses apart is one of the most practical things this lesson can give you.

The correspondence idea and its rivals

The oldest and most intuitive account is the correspondence idea: a claim is true when it matches how things actually are. 'There is a coffee cup on the table' is true if, out in the world, a cup sits on the table. Truth, on this view, is a relationship between what we say and what is the case — our words answer to reality, not the other way around.

Philosophers have offered rivals. The coherence theory says a belief is true when it fits consistently with everything else we hold; the pragmatic theory says truth is what reliably works when we act on it. Each captures something real — good beliefs do hang together and do work in practice — but both are usually better understood as tests for truth than as what truth is. A belief can cohere neatly with your other beliefs and still be wrong about the world. For everyday reasoning, correspondence remains the anchor: the world is the thing our claims are accountable to.

Facts, opinions, and matters of taste

Not every sentence works the same way. An objective fact is a claim made true or false by how the world is, independent of who is judging: the boiling point of water at sea level, the year a treaty was signed. A matter of taste reports a preference — 'coriander is delicious' — and different answers can both be genuine, because the claim is really about the speaker. Between them sits opinion in the strong sense: a judgment about facts, like 'this policy will reduce traffic.' That is not mere taste; it can be better or worse supported by evidence, even when reasonable people still disagree.

'Your truth' and the trouble with relativism

Relativism is the view that truth is relative to a person or culture — that there is no fact of the matter beyond perspective. It deserves a fair hearing: our vantage point really does shape what we notice, and humility about our own view is a virtue. But taken as a claim about all truth, it turns on itself. If 'everything is relative' is only relative, it gives you no reason to accept it; if it is absolutely true, it refutes itself. The usable lesson is narrower: perspectives differ, and facts still exist for perspectives to be right or wrong about.

Three friends argue. One says 'the film came out in 2019,' another 'the film is overrated,' the third 'the film is boring.' These look alike but are not. The first is an objective fact — a release date either matches the record or it does not. The second is a supportable opinion — you can cite reviews, sales, craft. The third is largely taste. Calling all three 'just opinions' hides the fact that only one can be settled by checking, and only two can be argued with reasons at all.

Won't the correspondence idea claim too much certainty? Notice it does the opposite. Saying a claim is true if it matches reality does not say we always know when it does. Truth is about what makes a claim correct; knowledge is about how well we can tell. Keeping them apart lets you hold both that there is a fact of the matter about, say, a medication's safety, and that our current evidence about it may be incomplete. Correspondence sets the target; it does not promise we have already hit it.

In November 2016, Oxford Dictionaries named post-truth its Word of the Year, reporting that usage had surged around that year's Brexit referendum and United States presidential election. They defined it as 'relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.'

The word names a worry, not a discovery. It does not claim facts stopped existing; it flags a cultural moment in which, for many audiences, whether a claim felt right or fit a group identity seemed to matter more than whether it was right. That is precisely where the correspondence idea earns its keep. If truth is just correspondence to reality, then a claim's emotional pull is no evidence of its accuracy — a comforting falsehood and an unwelcome fact are still false and true regardless of how they land. 'Post-truth' is a useful label for a public mood, but it is not a new theory of truth; it is a reminder of why the old one still matters.

• 'Everything is just opinion.' Objective facts are settled by the world, not by preference, even when people disagree about them.
• 'If people disagree, there's no fact of the matter.' Disagreement often means someone is mistaken, not that truth has vanished.
• 'Your truth and my truth can both be right about the same fact.' On a genuine matter of fact, at most one of two contradictory claims is true.
• 'Believing in objective truth means being certain.' Truth is what makes a claim correct; certainty is a separate question about how well we know.

Take five claims you have heard this week and label each as objective fact, supportable opinion, or matter of taste; for the facts, write down what evidence would confirm or refute them, and notice how differently each type behaves in an argument.

Think Like a Maester: Before you argue, ask whether the claim answers to the world, to the evidence, or only to the speaker.

1. State the correspondence idea of truth in one sentence.
2. How does an objective fact differ from a matter of taste?
3. Why is a strong opinion, like a policy prediction, not simply 'just taste'?
4. What is the self-undermining problem with saying 'all truth is relative'?
5. Why does the 'post-truth' moment illustrate the value of the correspondence idea rather than replace it?

To call a claim true, on the correspondence idea, is to say it matches how things actually are — the world is what our claims answer to. Rival theories about coherence and practical success capture useful tests for truth but work poorly as accounts of what truth is. Everyday claims come in different kinds: objective facts settled by the world, supportable opinions that evidence can strengthen or weaken, and matters of taste that report a preference. Relativism rightly reminds us that perspective shapes what we see, but as a claim about all truth it collapses under its own weight. The 2016 rise of 'post-truth' named a mood in which feeling outran fact — and in doing so showed exactly why an idea of truth anchored in reality is worth keeping.

• Spotting Misinformation and Disinformation
• Doubt and Certainty