Truth is a choice

It is not an absolute truth, so your reluctance to just agree is perhaps the smart move

...all forms of relation always ad and never subtract...

...every step forward is a step back...so I guess both ways is the honest answer...when you get something new normally you leave something behind in its place...bottom line is that both forms of understanding were valid in its own domain...but if you change domain the understanding and description changes with you...Truth still is the same although you may speak in a different form to refer it...

But "absolute truth" aside, perhaps it is easier now to relate to the headline of this thread: Truth is a choice.

Cyracuz wrote:

But "absolute truth" aside, perhaps it is easier now to relate to the headline of this thread: Truth is a choice.

Just as Oxygen is a choice, for we can hardly live without either...

The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.

The gold foil scattering experiment

In Canada, Rutherford felt he was far away from the center of things. He longed to return to England where he would be closer to other physicists. In 1907, Arthur Schuster asked him to direct the physics laboratory at the University of Manchester. Rutherford gladly accepted the job.

At Manchester, Rutherford found a well-equipped laboratory. He also found a 25-year-old physicist named Hans Geiger. Geiger had been Professor Schuster's assistant. When Rutherford took over, Geiger agreed to stay and work with him on alpha particles.

Together, Rutherford and Geiger developed a detector that could count alpha particles. It was an early version of the Geiger-Mueller counter we use today.

Geiger used his counter to test a new way of detecting alpha particles. The new detector was a screen coated with zinc sulfide. Each time an alpha particle hit the screen, it would emit a tiny flash of light called a scintillation. In order to see the scintillations, Geiger had to peer at the screen through a microscope.

Now Geiger was ready to do an experiment. Rutherford had noticed that when a beam of alpha particles passed through a thin foil, its image on a photographic plate was blurred. The alpha particles were colliding with the atoms in the foil, and bouncing off at a small angle. When a beam of particles interacts with a target in this way, it is said to be scattered. Rutherford and Geiger hoped to learn something about atoms by counting the scattered particles.

Geiger got his alpha particles from a radioactive "source." To create a narrow beam of particles, Geiger placed his source behind a slit. Fifty-four centimenters from the slit he placed a zinc-sulfide detector. The alpha particles emerged from the slit and hit a spot in the center of the detector.

Geiger put a thin foil in front of the slit. The alpha particles went through the foil, but they did not come out in a narrow beam. They spread out like light from a flashlight.

Geiger moved his detector across the beam. At each new spot he counted the number of alpha particles hitting the screen. From his measurements he calculated the average angle of deflection of an alpha particle that had passed through the foil. It was very small, less than one degree from the center path.

At about this time, a student named Ernest Marsden joined Geiger at the lab. Geiger asked Rutherford to suggest a project for the young man. Rutherford told him to see if any of the alpha particles were being deflected by more than 90 degrees. That is, he was to see if any alpha particles were bouncing back toward the source.

A few days later, Geiger reported that Marsden had indeed observed alpha particles deflected by more than 90 degrees.

Rutherford was dumbfounded. From Geiger's measurements, he knew that the probability of small deflections adding up to more than 90 degrees was less than one in a billion. Yet when Geiger and Marsden counted alpha particles, they found that about one in 8000 was deflected by a large angle.

Rutherford could think of only one explanation for Marsden's result. The alpha particles must be colliding with something small and heavy inside the atom.

Hantaro Nagaoka had been right. The atom's positive charge was concentrated in the center, with the electrons in orbit around it. The small, heavy center of the atom is called the nucleus, from the Latin word meaning kernel, or small nut.

Cyracuz wrote:

The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.

where here is an alternate truth , other than what the experiment shows ?

there isn't

First, he is referring to Nature´s Law´s, which so far as we can tell are the same they always were...
Second you are to distinguish Knowledge of truth from Truth which are different things...
and third, the problem of what language refers to is a matter of convention and not a matter of being on its own right...

When one demands for an alternate truth then the one truth we experiment through our perception and senses and that we reason with our brains one is demanding for an entirely different set of natural rules in order to be able make the comparison on what rests on a more fundamental level...it happens there´s no such alternative nor we can have any other form of contact with reality which is n´t the result of our perceptional apparatus and its functional interaction with the world...for purposes of knowledge which is what we can engage on truth that which we can experiment its the ultimate and only source for it, in there rests the ground of our only knowledge and even the scope and depth of our questions, once we cannot mean to ask that which we don´t know or can´t have access to...

Questions only ask and mean as far as they can conceive what they are asking for...and in such way this is correct that the only conception of demanding for truth that we can have necessarily requires an answer in the exact proportion of what really has been asked for...
(its fair to conclude that there are no transcendental questions, only presumption and nonsense)

I tend to value my own interpretations above those of others. Yesterday I had to endure a person who was hell bent on telling me that I was full of myself. Even though I understood that his motive was that he felt he was trapped in "my shadow" I cannot help but consider his words... I do not know if I put too much emphasis on the opinions of others, or perhaps too little. Conceptual clarity isn't always the same as a clear view.

In a way Socrates was right when he said that we recognize the truth because we already have it. This is a bit like your statement that "We can try to perceive the interpretations of other peole, but they're [really]...our own [but] from a different source."
I agree with Cryacuz that our interpretations are, or should be, most valuable to us because they are ours. Tomorrow we may discard them but not now. And we may adopt (or at least become more open to) the view of another person tomorrow. And isn't that because we are always changing?