What is truth?

Truth is/refers to whatever is the case...in the least you have experience, itself a collection of events, and a very objective collection...forget subjectivity, the damn word dwells in confusion...there is nothing subjective which first it is not objective...

What precisely is the content of "truth" to which scientists are aiming? You also run into the following problem based upon your assertion: if scientists (or philosophers who are talking about scientists) decide upon what truth is, then haven't they already obtained the aim to which they have already set out? In other words, how will scientists know that truth has been attained in light of what they aimed at? Something to think about.

Also, there is a connection between subject and object for some philosophers, notably process philosophers. It is the notion of a superject. A superject, according to Whitehead, is an individual or actual entity that emerges through a process by means of feelings and the attainment of satisfactions. So maybe the divide between subject and object becomes skewed in a way. Another thing to think about.

Are you referring to the practical usage of assertion on functionality ?
...well, assertions are valid as long fundamental operating functions match descriptions...

For instance:

A "wall" can be described in many ways, from a bunch of atoms, a force, an obstacle, it is irrelevant as long its fundamental function is preserved, which is to block...

Enquiry is not open ended, on the contrary, it has a depth field regarding contextual layered operations beyond which further development becomes meaningless...none of that impedes the truthfulness of a description matching the fundamental operation in a given context of experience...it is objective !
(the partial mapping from real operations conforms to the essentially required in the inquiry)

To the first question, using the scientific method.
Then one must ask if progress and "truth" are intertwined? Intuitively, without thinking thoroughly, the answer would be a yes, but on deeper thought, I'd have to lean towards no. Does modern science give us truth or a way to interpret events of nature?

The subject-object problem is a headache to clarify. Why is a human subject capable of interpreting the objectivity that is the world around them? Or how sure is a humans capability of interpreting the objects around them? A some-sort of transject mainframe from the perspective of a subject.

The problem is that meaning changes as context changes...if you take notice the Sun in the sky does indeed revolve around the Earth from East to West as a function of a projected image of the real object...movement of Earth itself is not observed from an inside perspective... the first aimed inquiry to the motion of the Sun its not equal to the second extraterrestrial approach, both are correct in observed context to the functions they intend to refer...that is, the functions observed are factual...there is indeed relative motion of the image of the Sun...as context and depth of observation changes so does the aiming of the inquiry progresses... the relational field of the object "grows" in richness, adding not subtracting to the original functional relations or effects in local points...whatever new explanation emerges it still would objectively refer to a layer of phenomena which is functionally actual but "denser" in field...what else needs explaining ?

I like to distinguish between truth and reality. The latter is what is the case (and that varies with contexts) and the former is our propositions about the former. We propose truths and live realities.

Idealists are correct when in layman terms try to explain (from the above example) we are not observing the Sun...what they fail to see is that what they call "our construction of events", bottom line is just the objective function of operating interactions between the Sun and the observer, which obviously is not a construct of anyone but a sub product of local conditions, themselves a very objective fact...local conditions include the actual perceptive state of affairs of the subject as the state of affairs from the observed event at N point, both part of a World were the function between both is real and true !

I like to distinguish between reality and truths. The former is whatever is the case while the latter are our propositions about the former. We propose truths and manage/experience realities.

I think in my first post I mention Truth REFERS to whatever is the case...obviously you are right in the remark...

...more, what is socially debated is not the construction of the object in inquiry but rather the field of functions that should be included in the description of the object from several different local conditions, both from observers and observable...

Well that is interesting. What is the difference between the two? It seems to be time. For example imagine asking yourself how much time does it take before reality is truth? Both terms seems to have overlapping attributes.

Or are they in an uncertainty relationship similar to the Heisenberg principle?
For example, the more certain you are about the reality of a situation the more uncertain the truth becomes, and vice-versa: the more you believe something to be true the less clear reality becomes to you. Sometimes not, but in some instances it seems to be the case.

The difference is that "truth" is verbalized social agreement about contextual "reality" (including internal self with self), "Reality", being interactive process between observer(s) and observed, always has a dynamic (temporal) aspect. The verbalization of "truth" is like attempting to share a snapshot of the interactive river we call "reality". In the sense that the range of the chosen snapshot temporal window is specific to the context of agreement, the Heisenberg analogy is partially apt (as in the Fourier version of the principle)), but fails in its binary aspect since "reality" and "truth" are metaphysical not material constructs.

The followers of Pyrrho may not agree with you.
Philosophy, religion and science aren't static, but is ever changing and evolving. These are the modes of inquiry we all use to define what is true. So as I understand it, what's true seems to be a value we use to define things as true or not true at a specific time in the progression of the individual and the mode of inquiry used. Not one of use, nor science, religion or philosophy can escape itself in order to observe everything from an objective position in order to truly observe what really is.

I think we are all guilty, at times, of not questioning our beliefs and just going with what feels good or right to us. It's hard not to, because if you spend your whole life questioning every belief you have every time you need to make any decision you will go insane!

Reality seems to be a loose term. There is consensus reality, and subjective reality since what we perceive as reality is dependent upon our point of view.

I am still left with an incomplete picture.

Well that is metaphysics for you, in the end you are left with more questions than answers.

Science isn't concerned with truth. It's concerned with facts.
A fact is a functional description of something.
Truth is far more ambiguous.

Hey, sock my foot!

You can say that it is true that I just said that, but if this was a verbal conversation, I could just deny it until you were sure you'd misheard. That it is written in this post is a fact, but what does it mean? Am I just saying that you should put a sock on my foot, or am I implying an insult? What's the truth?
Would you agree that there is a sub conscious choice involved in deciding what the truth is?

Truth is the correct assertion about a fact...whatever your example means, which we may not know, does not imply that there isn't any truth to what you meant at the time you post it...we may decide to believe whatever we want or feel like it, but again the scope and field of what you said imply you intended one way or another, thus at least one of the possible assumptions will correspond to fact.

look , your confussion is based on anthropomorphism of reality other mamals and reptiles , insects and vegatation, sea creatures understood their enviroment long before we started this discussion on subjective and objective reality when objectively looked at , as a whole , the planet the Universe , there are obvious connections which we tend , as a whole , to ignor or don't consider when we ask this question we a part of the enviroment , but in no way are we ALL of the enviroment I hope I'm clear here

truth is the concept which confirm that subject and object are same fact which can b abstracted therefore explain how conscious beings are free outside of truth

truth is literally what is real, while the subject is kind of being real too alone by standing still while in free space

substancially truth is superiority as an absolute condition before any formation of any

that is why, objective value is simply the exponential of value fact becomin constant form, so superiority as a major quantity justification of value
and subjective value is the reality of true superiority so the quality of superiority by itself always beyond itself and all existing conceptions of superiority

the main benefit of truth is absolute freedom from what superiority erase the possible inferior to exist, so the sense of being positive present is sure

Torri wrote :
Truth is an idea, and the whole truth is an concept of abstract objective that science is aiming to attain. Yet to be abstract it must exist in someone's mind, however, if it is in the mind, then shouldn't it be subjective?
Then again truth is an idea that conforms between reality and a claim. so what is the difference between subjective truth and objective truth? Is it such that subjective truth is what is true about a subject and an objective truth is that what is true about an object? If so, then aren't subjects some special kind of objects, and therefore, are all truth really objective?

BHANU PADMO : Identity of Truth (1).
Truth is reality – past, current and potential.

All three forms of truth exist physically. The past remains embedded under the current as latter*s cause when the potential is still afloat as neuronal entity (incorporated idea) in the form of a subjective feeling.

The ultimate source of the past and the current reality is the potential reality or subjective thinking. The potential truth is heuristic, initially tentative but coalescing into sustainable idea. Conceptualization is the psychological process in which potential reality is manufactured. The ingredients are perceptional memories and lesser ideas.

The subjective truth (potential reality) precipitates as objective truth (past and current reality) through exercise of physical ability of the respective entity.

Thus, truth has multiple sources and is procured through multiple agencies. Since the multiple sources of truth in the form of entities are amalgamated into one universe out of their own dreams and discretions, all truths would be focused in integrative universal evolution.