Is truth subjective or objective?

That depends on what truth you're talking about.

Re: Is truth subjective or objective?
Taliesin
Truth is an adequation between a proposition and an empirical verification.
If, for example, you think that there is a world complot to destroy you, that belief is not impossible. But the belief that the world is not comploting against you has more probabilities of being true.

Truth is in perception. Since we all perceive things differently there can be no "one truth".

Rufio: Any truth will do, but specifically things like 'that apple is red' etc.

I believe that there is a single, unified, objective truth, but that our perceptions can influence our individual reality, or 'truth,' which is shown most notably in the placebo effect. People will feel better, tumors will shrink, and diseases will vanish entirely if people believe they will. In other words, truth is a gem which we're all looking at through different facets.

Taliesin, I didn't understand your statement. Do you mean that "truth" exists, like the platonic "Forms"? And what do you mean by objective? Do you mean truth exists in itself, exterior to human experience?

Please define truth, including terms such as intelligence, life and perspective.

In a universe totally devoid of all life - so there are no creatures capable of making observations - is truth still the same or is it non sensical. Can only creatures with (imperfect) perception assert or observe truth in their frame of reference.

If I say 1 = 1 is that truth?

If I say I believe I am happy at this moment is that truth?

If I say I don't know what I have forgotten or can't recall is that truth?

Truth is the imprecise term, bound by language, culture, frame of reference and perception. You could argue truth can be abstract and absolute or observational and subjective based upon a higher intelligence's perception of its own reality.

The apple will not be red to a colour blind person.

An apple being red, in the sense that it reflects a certain range of the spectrum of light is an objective fact, whether or not the persons looking at the apple can distinguish that fact. But really, those kinds of scientific truths only skim the surface, I've seen. Doing fieldwork really changes your ideas about what a "fact" is, I guess.

Val: yes, I believe that there is an exterior truth that is a separate and objective entity from the human experience. However, our perceptions of this truth yield a kind of individual reality. So, while we can't ever know for sure what's really "true" or not, that doesn't change that some things are true.
G_Day: Truth is the factual state of reality that does not change. However, as I said above, our perceptions can alter what we believe to be true, thus creating the "individual reality."
Shepaints: Does that mean that one person's perception of the apple changes whether or not it is red in reality? If I think you don't exist, do you blink out of existence? I say not, but tell me what you think.
Rufio: I agree with you that we can't ever know a set of concrete "truths," but I think there are absolutes that exist, even if we can't say with a hundred percent assurance that they do.

I am saying that the objective truth for the minority
of people who are colour blind will be different
from those who have red colour receptors. Here's
an interesting link:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8833/coloreye.html

For me, a red apple will be very red close up, but more and more muted by atmospheric variables the further it is distanced from me. Does that make it still red? This may also apply to green mountains which look
blue or purple in the distance. The objective truth of the colour of
the mountains obviously varies. In fact it would probably be difficult
to get two people to agree on the exact colour being perceived......

g day

Very good point. In that kind of universe - totally devoid of life - truth has no sense at all. Not because there are no creatures capable of making observations but because truth is "made", as a relation between a statement and an empirical experience. There is no truth "out there" waiting to be discovered by us.

Shepaints: I tried to follow the link, but it said the page was "temporarily unavailable." Can you tell me what was on it? But, back to the point, even if two people can't agree on an exact color, that doesn't alter the actual color.
G_Day: That is an interesting point; I'll concede on the point that in this empty universe, truth has no real value, but I still say that it would nevertheless exist. Just because we stop seeing something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Unless you're an existentialist, of course. Are you?
Val: See above. (Truth still seems objective to me, even if the only way we have of perceiving it is through a subjective lens.)

The link is working Taliesin181

truth is objective...it is our interpretation and acceptance of it that is subjective.....

Okay, it's working now.I didn't know about the black and white recpetors. Interesting.

What a murky topic.

clear as mud JL? Can you help?

I'm not sure I can help, but I can add to the confusion. I'm good at that.
Let me suggest a narrow stereoschopic view of "truth" that is both subjective and objective. Truth, in this view, is (1) an answer to a question that is subjectively satisfying or (2) an answer that complies with objective criteria (e.g., logical rules, empirical canons of evidence or statistically significant associations). And the notion of truth itself is a cultural construction that is inter-subjective insofar as it is shared by people who have learned it from, and teach it to, others.
But for me, personally, truth is a subjective response to the evidence of an objective argument.

Objective truth exists. People may perceive things differently, but objective truths do exist, even in ethics. I've stated my stance.