Absolute truth?

The sentence, "Snow is white" is true if and only if, snow is white.

Yes, the answers are straight, thanks for indulging me.

But they do not really answer the question, just point towards the answer.

Quote:

The sentence, "Snow is white" is true if and only if, snow is white.

Not only. We also need an universal agreement that "white" shall be the name of that characteristic of the substance in question, and we also need to universally agree that the distinction "snow" is meaningful in relation to other types of atmospheric water phenomena. Why are we not referring to it as crystallized H2O? Or as frozen mist?
The answer is simple: Because these descriptions do not invoke the emotional familiarity that gives the concept snow it's meaning.

Perhaps you could try explaining snow to someone who has never seen it or otherwise experienced it. It wouldn't matter what you called it, he wouldn't have been able to add meaning to that word before he had established a personal relationship to the concept, and the deeper the emotional involvment of that relationship, the more "true" the concept becomes. But there is no external "actuality" that we conform to, since such an unconceptualized reality cannot exist, be expressed or referred to in any way. If you doubt it, just try.

Thanks for that reference. I note you only cite the "coherence theory of truth" when in essence many theories are compared and contrasted. Nor does the article does not touch on levels of discourse with respect to the phrase "absolute truth".

Sorry!
You do not cite the coherence theory, especially the post modernist version. Nor do you cite pragmatism. Note also the end of the article about the attitude of scientists to the word "truth".

The attitude of scientists concerns KNOWLEDGE on Truth, not Truth...

Is The Goal of Scientific Research to Achieve Truth?
Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true. Nevertheless, to make sense of this, philosophers need adopt no special concept such as “approximate truth.” Instead, it suffices to say that the researchers’ goal is to achieve truth, but they achieve this goal only approximately, or only to some approximation.

Other philosophers believe it’s a mistake to say the researchers’ goal is to achieve truth. These “scientific anti-realists” recommend saying that research in, for example, physics, economics, and meteorology, aims only for usefulness. When they aren’t overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn’t true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available “representation”, in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren’t true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.

So... Can anyone name an absolute truth?

No....you are still doing your "independent truth" thing.(Kant's Noumena).
If you read Rorty, the word "truth" is irrelevant to epistemology. There is no "fixed frame" or "fundamental substance". The point is that "life" (humans) is a dynamic processes which adapts to perturbations to their structures. (assimilation-accommodation). Part of such adaptatation is at the social/paradigmatic level involving negotiation with others. The history of such continuous adaptations is called "acquired knowledge". An arbitrary snapshot or single frame of such state transitions is as far as you going to get with a concept of "fundamental truth".

If there was no rain in New York that day that is a fact, and I am pretty sure that you understand that if you were to say that to someone even just a thousand years ago, they wouldn't have found any meaning in it, and it would have been discarded as nonsense.

No. "Water" is not still water. You are being fooled by the abstract persistence of the linguistic token we call a "word". In some culture there are different words for "water that you cross" and "water you may drink" and it is taboo to mix them up. Words change their connotations with respect to culture and time. What matters is the functionality of the linguistic token. What you call "deeper understanding" is a value judgement about modifications of functionality which imply greater control. Such control is about interaction of your "within" and "without" NOT merely about "the without".

water is water independently of whether or not the sentence "water is water" is spoken.