of course mashw, there is truth. There has to be, but again each one to their own. The creationist has as much right to their truth, as an evolutionist to his. (I do not believe in either so lets put that to rest now, but both describe a process of development which I find interesting considering how polar both camps like to think themselves)
okey lets have a stab with an example of what i was saying, in a terminology im eloquent with.
generally speaking, within art. Each mark has a purpose (even if it doesnt, it's purpose is to show there is no purpose...), and according to Picasso art is a process of eliminating the uneccissary. (which has been the basis of Modernism and Postmodernism)
so we have concentrated pieces filled with purpose, YET, with most of contemporary art, at first we have no idea WHAT we are looking by using our perception (and we never will do). All we can do is experience it, and try to find a common experience.
here is a painting, dont worry what the name is, or who it is by (its mine if you really care).
Now, all im asking you, is to describe what you associate with the marks on the page (you dont have to im just using this as an example). There is no way to actually KNOW the truth of the painting, no scientific method or mathmatical process, but one can understand it without KNOWING and THAT is the truth, and thus personal opinion can coincide with truth, no matter if it is deemed different through a scientific/mathmatical or even artistic process.