Truth needs your consent

In this article: Judging truth from opinion.

I use a simple model to help wrap my head around the many claims to 'truth'.

Opinion -- A theory or fact held to be true by an individual.
Paradigm -- A theory or fact held to be true by a group.
Truth -- A theory or fact held to be true by everyone.

However truth is a relative word, as is everything in the relative realm.

So a group may talk of their paradigm as a truth (relative to the group), just as I may talk of my opinion as my truth (relative to me). But if humanity holding a human truth met ET's culture who held a different truth, humanities truth would then become a human paradigm (within that new interplanetary context).

In a universal context -- We could have a human opinion, a galactic paradigm and universal truth, but back on earth we would comfortable talk about that same human opinion, as a human truth (from a human perspective).

I also find it useful to weight paradigm. And by this I mean a paradigm developed by a group within their field of expertise and following scientific methodology, although still a paradigm, would hold (for me) more credibility than a conflicting theory developed by another group outside of their field of expertise, or using non-scientific methodology.

Context therefore changes the relative thruth'ness of any fact or theory.

And 'truth' evolves and unless you agree, it's not the truth, because truth needs your consent.

The only Absolute Truth appears to be 'Nothing' ... literally No Thing.