For the background to this, see ‘the “need to” cop-out’ in the Language > Idioms forum.

This is a philosophical question, but also a linguistic one.  Consider the following sentences:

1. Evolution is true.
2. Evolution is true for me.
3. I believe in evolution.

The first sentence refers to ‘objective’ truth, the second to ‘subjective’ truth.  My question is this: Is ‘subjective’ truth really truth at all, or should it only be called belief?  In other words, is sentence 2 just a pretentious and dogmatic way of saying sentence 3?

When anyone says that something is ‘true for them’, I think they are exploiting the prestige of the word ‘true’ undeservedly.  All they mean is that they believe the thing, without having to justify it.  Can’t we reserve ‘truth’ to mean ‘objective’ truth?  (If you deny that there is such a thing, just talk about ‘belief’ and leave the word ‘truth’ for us objectivists!)

By the way, I do think evolution is objectively true, but that’s another matter.  (If you wish to discuss the merits of evolution, please start a new thread - or go to a science or philosophy forum!)

In one respect all truth is subjective, or at least a lot of what we call true is being proven otherwise everyday. Until we know everything, which is of course impossible, words like truth should be allowed only in cases where something is agreed upon. I agree the “true for me” mentality is only serving to diminish the users credibility because he is admittedly making up his own rules to a universal game. A double standard is implied. Don’t get me started on language and how we use it to manipulate each other and even ourselves (I realize that sounded like I meant,“get me started” but that’s a huge can of worms.)

In one of my unpublished novels I say (in context), “Language is primarily used for lying. The truth is usually apparent and clear so when we feel compelled to tell the truth we’re probably trying to manipulate it, to emphasize a particular aspect or downplay a certain detail to make the truth suit our needs.”

As Pontius Pilate said to the Christ: “What is truth?  We all have truths.”
I’d be for reserving “truth” to mean objective truth only. But who would be the determiner? Remember Galileo.

This is a philosophical question, but also a linguistic one.  Consider the following sentences:

1. Evolution is true.

Evolution is not true but a scientific orthodoxy, often mistaken for truth.

2. Evolution is true for me.

. . . which doesn’t make it anymore true for yourself or anyone else!

3. I believe in evolution.

. . . just as one might indeed profess certain religious beliefs—hardly scientific method, eh?

The first sentence refers to ‘objective’ truth, the second to ‘subjective’ truth.  My question is this: Is ‘subjective’ truth really truth at all, or should it only be called belief?  In other words, is sentence 2 just a pretentious and dogmatic way of saying sentence 3?

Yea verily, unless truth can also be subjective!  Nay say ye, then what on earth is absolute truth anyhow, and just how does it differ from your scientific truth?

When anyone says that something is ‘true for them’, I think they are exploiting the prestige of the word ‘true’ undeservedly.  All they mean is that they believe the thing, without having to justify it.  Can’t we reserve ‘truth’ to mean ‘objective’ truth?  (If you deny that there is such a thing, just talk about ‘belief’ and leave the word ‘truth’ for us objectivists!)

Then first solve the enduring question of philosophical truth, unless your shrouded intent happens to be inimical to all known & unknown philosophy!  Oh, do try and stay away from those gawd-awful, Marxist-Leninist, wide-sweeping generalizations—talk about cop-outs, huh, mea maxima “cop-out”!  Truth and belief may not be the same, but embark upon keeping them separate and you alone face the impossible journey that none have yet brought home once and for all!  Happy birthday, Charles Darwin!