What is truth ?

hmm. your right.

All knowledge fundamentally rests on belief. Belief in the scientific process and our criteria for finding facts in some cases, in other cases it's our belief in what we think more likely, and for most people it is a belief in the proficiency of those we look up to as the pioneers of whichever branch of inquiry catches our fancy.
Even though they may be well founded and reasonable beliefs they are still beliefs.

Yes, the validity of Science is not the product of scientific experimentation and formal enquiry. Credibility, of course, results from empirical science's success record and the efficiency of its method, but that is not the same as intellectual foundations established over the centuries by the "Philosophy of Science." And that is, ultimately, a matter of belief.

I would actually would ask you to clarify what you mean with a matter of belief when you assume that perceptually what it works works...that is, that the circumstances by which one believe what one believes is per se a fact that you assume to be true...

'Belief' comes when you don't know what you're talking about but you want to make people think you do.

i.e. your last post.

...where is the criteria for the "you don´t know what you are talking about" to compare with if we are to take your point of view on truth ?

This is a very simple remark that you all evade just to keep on and on on the same non evolving anarchist line of thought...

When you know what you're talking about, you don't hide behind words(concepts) like 'belief', 'science', 'anarchist', all of which you have constructed to cover up 'your own' Dasein.

I suppose "Dasein" and "cover up" are not concepts on your view but absolute truths...get over it, you can do better...

'I' could do 'better', sure. Or, you could just look at 'me' differently and have everything work out perfectly.

I think what I think. You either find value in it or you don't. I couldn't care less, to be honest, about your need to prove to yourself that you are smart or whatever. If that's what you are after you should stay away from a2k. And that is not an insult, it's just friendly advice, because in contrast to those who have true insights in here, you do not emerge as an inspiring thinker.

Truth, is the accurate human perception of when imagination is no longer needed.

Imagination its a true circumstance...and it seems to be very much needed since we have it..

'Belief' is a symptom of truth. 'Belief' tells you that "something is true here" if only you'll look into it and uncover it. You really can't believe anything, it's not something a human, 'Be'-ing is capable of doing. 'Belief' is a conclusion you come to when you get tired of thinking and stop. You also can't have any 'Beliefs'.

'Belief' is an invitation to go past 'Belief' and get to the bottom of it to uncover truth. That way you can 'Be' truth instead of 'Be'-ing the 'Belief'' (semblance) of truth. If you never uncover truth then instead of having 'Beliefs', 'Beliefs' have you, by the huevos.

How hard do you believe in that eh ?

Where do idiotic responses come from?

The idiotic attitude is to continually reply to your ever greater display of mystifying nonsense...you are a poor cliché mate, even to quote and interpret being and time...I basically could resume your babbling to four or five repeated sentences time and again...and because in this sad world there are always some people dreadfully far more stupid then you are, you get to have some audience ready to drink your bits of wisdom, your pearls of knowledge and insight...

I just will borrow this vid from another thread because it perfectly fits you...

As I said in a earlier post. When you walk by the neighborhood dog do you try to stop him from barking or do you just walk by?

Evidently there is some truth in my barking or you wouldn't be reacting.

I'd tell you to look in a mirror but I don't think you're mature enough to laugh at yourself.

I think it worth pointing out that the word "truth" only arises in normal life in connection with decision making about axioms. We don't waste our time thinking about the "truth" of 2+2=4, nor do we vocalise any other statement of "fact" unless such facts become subject to question. A noted pedagogical device for example is for a math teacher to write 2+2=11 on the board and to explain its "truth" in terms of a change of axioms from base 10 to base 3.
The decision to change axioms changes consequences and "truth" merely arises as an evaluation of "goodness of fit".
"Belief" is about sticking to axioms which continue to "work".

In none of that did you care to explain why do they work...you should be positing the opposite if to take seriously your claim concerning truth...
The fact is that even if we indulge in buying the idea you still have a problem in hands...lets say, the ontology of phenomenology if you want...
...the problem arises because people don´t seem to understand that any description or knowledge never quite corresponds to the thing unless of course it is the thing in the sense of being a replica of it...I put it in terms of "equivalent information mass", or size if you indulge the expression...descriptions are inferior in size to "things", I will avoid objects, since objects are functions or segments of information in between other lines of information..."things" in my usage concern meta-objects with a set of multiple potential operational functions depending with whom or what they interact with.
...but is not just size or mass of descriptions regarding the object, context between operators is of essence to establish what is being what...now none of this changes an actual state of affairs in a final set of all sets...

"Explanations" are simply chains of reasoning from axioms. Unlike you, I have no faith in ultimate axioms (absolute truth).

In the literature,the closest position to your own I have read recently is that of Merleau-Ponty's "inaccessible reality" in which "observer" and "its world" are co-extensive. But M-P strenuously argues that this paradigm is not an explanatory theory in a scientific sense. It appears more like a "fall-back position" in a Wittgensteinian sense of "therapy". In that light, Rorty dismisses such talk of an "inaccessible reality" as just that.."talk"!

I NOW NOTE THAT YOU HAVE EDITED YOUR ORIGINAL POST