There is absolute truth
Then there is individual perception and interpretation of absolute truth
THEN there is individual perception and interpretation of one’s surroundings to come to a conclusion about the nature and identity of absolute truth
Which is then examined by another
Who then interprets that theory through their own individual perspective
As soon as man attempts to conceive and understand absolute truth, it is warped and destroyed
Absolute truth is infinite and beautiful
Cramming it into the finite human mind makes it unnaturally contained and unbeautiful
Remember the dress?
That was easily explained by science
Truth verses perspective is not simply a question of science
Because everything science tells us about the question is heard and understood by each individual through their own unique perspective
Which begs more questions that science cannot answer
Thus, we get doods like Bill Nye and Ken Ham looking at the same data and coming to completely different conclusions
They perceived the same things to have different implications
And consequently came to different conclusions about the nature and identities of certain absolute truths
Neither of them is completely correct
No one ever is
There are timeless, infinite things which the human mind can never fathom
No universal mathesis will ever cram absolute truth inside mans’ thick skulls
No thanks, Descartes
This begs a lot of questions
Like if truth is beautiful, but incomprehensible, do we know true beauty as humans?
What is art, if we cannot grasp truth nor beauty?
What is the purpose of philosophy and science, if truth is out of reach?
Are hot people not actually hot?
All good questions!