Well. Except for those true things that are contradictory with other true things. Like quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics.
Or any one of the open questions that exist in science of the same sort - this is true in chemistry but not biology, but seems to be true in their own reference frame. This creature wanted to do this versus had a chemical reaction. So are free will and determinism not true because they conflict? What if I observe one or the other? Does that make it more or less true because I'm the observer? Or both or neither?
And not all non- truths conflict with all other non-truths, just some of them. Not to mention the bit about a rational mind believing true things is nonsensical unless you make that your definition of truth. Given an unlimited amount of truths there will be some incredibly large (smaller infinite) subset that conflict.
I just gave two interrelated examples off the top of my head.
No, it was a fair point, just over-optimistic in regard to absolute truth. We can't be certain that anybody believes, knows, or has even heard of, any true things. However, we're pretty good at collecting together a widely-believed set of ideas where none of those ideas conflict with any of the others so far, at least not in most people's conscious awareness apart from in the minds of a few stray dissidents who may turn out to be brilliant or wackjobs. Once in a while a popular idea is shown to conflict with the rest and we have to revise our sketchy collection of tentative theories, to keep them all in apparent agreement and hence looking true. That's rational.
Sometimes, as in physics, bashing them all into line is beyond anyone's ability, for now.
Or any one of the open questions that exist in science of the same sort - this is true in chemistry but not biology, but seems to be true in their own reference frame. This creature wanted to do this versus had a chemical reaction. So are free will and determinism not true because they conflict? What if I observe one or the other? Does that make it more or less true because I'm the observer? Or both or neither?
And not all non- truths conflict with all other non-truths, just some of them. Not to mention the bit about a rational mind believing true things is nonsensical unless you make that your definition of truth. Given an unlimited amount of truths there will be some incredibly large (smaller infinite) subset that conflict.
I just gave two interrelated examples off the top of my head.