The fact disclosed by a survey of the past that majorities have usually been wrong, must not blind us to the complementary fact that majorities have usually not been entirely wrong.
The truth is out there, but it’s often discomfiting and nuanced and hard to find, and not nearly as satisfying as believing whatever you want and mocking those who don’t.
Truth has many dimensions, and the way you arrive at truth in complex situations is through many perspectives.
The truth between two people always cuts two ways.
When something happens far back in the past, people often can't recall exact details. Blame depends upon point of view. There may be a villain, but reality is frustrating because it's often ambiguous.
The questions most furiously discussed are those which have in them a basis of truth, and yet a large admixture of errors. We inconsiderately take hold of, and mistakingly support or oppose them, as either wholly true or wholly false.
There's always another story. There's more than meets the eye.
I think the writer's job is to paint the gray because no life is clearly defined.
There are always many sides to the truth.
Most true points are fine points. There never was a dispute between mortals where both sides hadn't a bit of right.
For any truth, if “overdone” (as Dietzgen Senior put it), if exaggerated, or if carried beyond the limits of its actual applicability, can be reduced to an absurdity, and is even bound to become an absurdity under these conditions.
