On the nature of truth:

Truth is what you believe.  And you believe what you understand, is my primary hypothesis.  However as this epic battle between Clinton and Obama rages I'm struck by the fact that my hypothesis is inadequate to explain our reality  The inadequacy lies in the modality of belief.. Dogmatism, hyperbole, and sophistry are the tools of a branch of truth which is by its nature based upon a sub-set of what a person actually believes.

As a life-long fan of detective and lawyer shows I have often observed in order to represent a client, or the laws, intelligent people are careful to remain ignorant of those salient facts which impact upon their ability to perform a specific truth based task.  For example a lawyer proclaims that they are unconcerned about the guilt of their client, and often ask that the client not admit their guilt as a potential obstacle to a zealous defense effort.  Or the policeman's willingness to apply the law despite obviously contrary circumstances, as with the lawyers they  rebel against any evidence that would put their actions up to any moral scrutiny.

This type of truth, as the motivator of actions, is as opposed to that truth which when based upon the sum of a persons knowledge, represents at least a conviction if not a certainty towards a point of view.  This type of truth would in theory represent a predictable pattern of thought, and would therefore be reliably predictable with some test or instrument.