It is impossible for people to witness the same event and the truth to be the same in every particular no matter how truthful they strive to be. It really is a matter of what filters you have and you are trying to deny they exist . Why?
..and again this is a perfect illustration. The word just has a different meaning to you than the classic meaning.
The truth, in your example, would be better illustrated by a video of the event which the two are recounting.(Do I really have to spell this out?) So if their accounts are both incorrect in certain details, would not the account provided by the camera be true and correct. The truth.
If they are incorrect or have inconsistencies how can their accounts be the truth? They are accidentally incorrect, and so, in some details, not telling the truth. In court, when they say to tell the truth, what do you think they mean?
Cambridge Dictionary:- "the real facts about a situation, event, or person" "the quality of being true" - this is pretty self explanatory.
The definition does not contain "real fact about a situation, event or person including incorrectly remembered facts, innuendo and scuttlebutt."
I understand perfectly what you have been saying. The totally correct recollection of events by humans is all but impossible and all accounts will differ somewhat. People's perception of events is a subjective experience.
This is irrelevant because people's accounts, recollection of events and fallibility are not mentioned in the definition. "the real facts about a situation, event, or person".
....and we are talking about the definition of a word within the English language here so we best leave the more esoteric discussions about perception or consciousness out of it.
It is impossible for people to witness the same event and the truth to be the same in every particular no matter how truthful they strive to be. It really is a matter of what filters you have and you are trying to deny they exist . Why?
..and again this is a perfect illustration. The word just has a different meaning to you than the classic meaning.
The truth, in your example, would be better illustrated by a video of the event which the two are recounting.(Do I really have to spell this out?) So if their accounts are both incorrect in certain details, would not the account provided by the camera be true and correct. The truth.
If they are incorrect or have inconsistencies how can their accounts be the truth? They are accidentally incorrect, and so, in some details, not telling the truth. In court, when they say to tell the truth, what do you think they mean?
Cambridge Dictionary:- "the real facts about a situation, event, or person" "the quality of being true" - this is pretty self explanatory.
The definition does not contain "real fact about a situation, event or person including incorrectly remembered facts, innuendo and scuttlebutt."
You miss what I am saying and I am not going to try to show you.
I understand perfectly what you have been saying. The totally correct recollection of events by humans is all but impossible and all accounts will differ somewhat. People's perception of events is a subjective experience.
This is irrelevant because people's accounts, recollection of events and fallibility are not mentioned in the definition. "the real facts about a situation, event, or person".
....and we are talking about the definition of a word within the English language here so we best leave the more esoteric discussions about perception or consciousness out of it.
It is nine words long, very succinct.