Organisations that use words like Truth are interesting. They follow the same semantic rule as countries that include Democratic in their name, like Democratic Republic of Congo and Deutsche Demokratische Republik (the old East Germany). They have to be viewed with a deep appreciation for irony.
In the old days I studied philosophy and focused on epistemology. Truth and reality are in some ways pretty elusive. Truth, for example, like history often rests with the victor (so to speak). As we are biological organisms we often do not experience reality directly, we develop percentions, that function well in day to day life. Those, however, are really not the same as "reality."
There is a difference between "truth" and "truthfulness."
One may be truthful without claiming infallibility.
The big difference is that truthfulness actually exists. It is the act of saying what one believes to be fact. Truthfulness has nothing to do with being correct. It thus has no value apart from giving the listener some idea of the prejudices of the speaker.
"It is the act of saying what one believes to be fact"
So, for you, it is a "personal truth" and truth is not independent of the person. It is in this case a synonym for belief. Now in our old epistemology days we would question the limits of such a premise. One can for example, believe that flying elephants (movies) truly exist. Or, perhaps sentient pickles. So as in the view you describe, truth and reality are in no way connected. So long as it is believed it is true.
You actually contradict your own premise, as these 2 cannot both be "true."
"The big difference is that truthfulness actually exists."
"It is the act of saying what one believes to be fact."
I posit one can believe things that do not exist as I have shown. Neither exist. I had a patient that believed he was a "fish" it do not make him a fish.
There presumably IS an objective reality out there, although I have no way to discount hard solipsism. But we experience it through our senses which are demonstrably garbage. But they are all we have, and we have to deal with the world as we experience it through them. That means we get a lot wrong and it takes some real discipline to try to sort fact from illusion. That discipline is called science and so far it is the only demonstrably reliable system we possess for getting anything right.
The concept of truth is one I would avoid whenever possible, since it deals only with the validity of statements made about reality and is hence of no intrinsic value. Science for investigation, falsifiability for testing and the logical absolutes as the foundation of reason are our only hope if we are to stand any chance of getting anything right.
You are confusing truth with fact. If a patient believes himself to be a fish, then he is being truthful when he says he is a fish. If he claims to be a fish in an act of deception, not actually believing it himself, then he is being untruthful. Whether he is or is not actually a fish is totally independent of his claims.
Perhaps I do not understand the distinction as yet. How can something be a fact but not be true? I understand the social construction position that a personal "truth" is the reality that he operates within. Within social construction, which appears in my world closest to your premise, there are limits. When one's personal truth and the truth that is the real world (with limited understanding) collide personal truth loses.
Help me out here. It appears you have personalized the definitions of words. Here is how I understand them. How do you define them, and how do they differ from one another?
- the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"
- that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"
what actually/really happened
the lie of the streets" data-hw="lie" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ALeKk03I_r_Na6Yow6tcGOlKUJGzdR18fg:1605738387739&q=define+lie&forcedict=lie&dictcorpus=en-US">
- a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"
- a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"
the lie of the streets" data-hw="lie" data-lb="" data-tae="false" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS858US858&sxsrf=ALeKk03lfnzQXiRTc8BGY8ho6iLMhSzgSQ:1605738635858&q=define+lie&forcedict=lie&dictcorpus=en-US">
- information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
"even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"
- LAW (Yes Law has its own separate definition of truth - Surprised?)
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
"there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter"
I was going to make a more lengthy process of my take on this question and subsequent answers posited.
But I will essentially leave it to the limit on how deep a rabbit hole I choose to go down.
So, in our world where numerous scenarios can and do occur, truthfulness matters.
For example, a person lives a law abiding life and does not commit illegal acts for which one may be charged and fined or imprisoned for. Chances are they will lead a life to remain free in society where no conditions of guilt will be present to be accused as a suspect to be possibly arrested, tried and convicted of committing a crime.
Just as the lawful citizen can continue to live free within the law, it is also entirely possible they may be doing so, and an occasion may arise for either false accusations, or mistaken identity etc. to be imparted upon this individual. In other words, one may essentially come into the cross-hairs of law enforcement even when the individual had NOT committed a crime.
So, truthfulness can significantly matter to the particular individual who values his status as model citizen vs. one that paints him as Public ENEMY NUMBER ONE.
I can see several sides to this type story where truthfulness can make a huge difference in the final outcome.
The citizen has evidence of his truthfulness that he did not commit any crimes or a particular crime.
Law enforcement, judicial system either takes certain facts, statements, evidence etc as supporting the claim of innocence and thus truthfulness of the claims of the citizen.
OR Law enforcement, judicial, is either truthful, complete, precise etc with their proof, statements, evidence, breakdown of the who, where, what, why,how etc the crime was perpetrated which either exonerates the innocent man and continues to pursue the actual perp. OR there stands a chance of a set of circumstances in the process by which despite innocence, the details are corrupted, falsified, or are even incomplete and "the wrong man" pays for the crime.
So I contend, truthfulness does matter.