I believe!

[Edwardo Piet]

Truth doesn't imply absolutes when you're talking about scientific truth which is what I'm talking about. Or if you prefer, scientific facts.

Maybe it's just me but, since no scientific explanation is beyond challenge, I genuinely don't see science as being about truth, simply facts and a reasonable interpretation of the same. Religion, OTOH, sees truth as non-negotiable (absolute).

Kyu

Well scientific facts and truths, are basically theories that are so close to proven, that the probability of them being correct are so strong, that they're not absolute but they are very close to absolute. So they are called scientific facts/ truths etc...
I guess a scientific truth is another word for a scientific theory perhaps. I know that you often don't normally say scientific truths, but when you're talking about "what's true" and science, you can use this term.
I mean it is allowed.
I have heard Dawkins say it.
And like I said it is so close to absolute that it can still be called truth. Besides I don't believe in absolutes (that we can know of at the moment), I don't believe in "nothing buttery".
So am I never allowed to use the word truth at all because it means absolute and I don't believe in absolutes? With the exception perhaps that the start of the universe or universes perhaps there was something of only one part, extremely simple, before 'inflation' took place or whatever happened, happened. But other than that I don't believe in "absolutes", so can't I ever use the word truth? I think truth should mean almost absolute rather than absolute.