This comes up often in conversations. I err on the side of "no". Anyone who errs on the side of "yes", can you say why it is that you hold that position?

No, it's true that fire is hot. I would like for someone to show how that can be false.

It's a fact that fire is hot. Therefore it cannot be false. It is the way things are.

"hot" is just a word...is it hot, or is it caliente?

Truth by definition is objective, but its perception is subjective.

Humans can only perceive truth.

Perception is subjective, it does not follow that we cannot perceive truth for what it is and/or does.

You're right. I did not think of that. We can get it right by sheer luck. But we can't have assurance that we got it right.

IDK señor' Fancy Pants, how 'bout I light you on fire and you tell me.

Thats funny indeed..!!

It is just like giving the full stop to subject.

How can anyone make any claim / argument without words???

Truth / False is to be stated through words only.Infact any instance becomes true / false only after it is stated through words,so how can one challange the meaning of words?

Curiosity has me questioning: What definition of truth would be required such that there would be no question as to whether truth could ever be subjective?

It's hot to you, but to a piece of steel(for example), it's not. In order to get steel hot, it needs to be exposed to heat a) for a very long time or b) heated with a high-power fuel like acetylene. IOW, in the wide spectrum of all things "hot", fire isn't that hot. (the center of a nuclear blast is also a lot hotter than fire)

Anyway, as to this issue of "truth"-if there is no objective measure of truth, there is no truth. This is why philosophy and religion are useful.

here's one definition: Truth is a thing that is never subjective.

here's another one: Truth is a thing which is always subjective.

I can't think of any other definition that would satisfy your criteria, but these two do the job seamlessly and elegantly, I think.

If you say these definitions have nothing to do with the the commonly accepted meaning of the word "truth" in the language, then I say that was not in your list of specification. And if it was, in an implied or non-implied way, then what you were doing was asking us, "A word has a meaning, which renders it X. How can we preserve the complete meaning of the word and not alter X but at the same time make its meaning be non-overlapping with X?"

I mean, it is established that truth is ambiguous, or subjective, or not; and you come in, and say, let's change the definition of "truth" to mean other than what it can mean, without changing its meaning, but changing its definition.

Can you rephrase your question so it makes sense? It's the first occasion I encountered in my life in which a question has a truth value, which is normally and hitherto only reserved for statements, or nominative sentences, and never for interrogative sentences.

Trivializing the language that we use leads to unintelligibility. Hot is not just a word, it sets out states of universal affairs.

"Fire is hot" is true if and only if there is something that we call "fire" and it is what we call "hot". IOW

"Fire is hot" iff fire is hot.

We cannot, but it does not follow that all we talk about is exhausted by or contained within our language. The term "truth" does not equate to truth as it instantiates itself. Truth presupposition is a pre-requisite, a necessary engagement of all thought/belief formation. We are engaged in truth long before we ever acquire language, especially during, and always after.

A true statement is not a truth. It is a statement which matches up to the way things are. Truth is that correspondence.

Sheer epistemic luck is one way to get it right, as Gettier showed nicely. That stems from a problem with disjunction. Be that as it may, I agree that we can get lucky and get it right. I do not think that getting lucky is the only way to get it right.

Why can't we have assurance that we've gotten it right?

This is wrong. All instances are states of affairs/reality. Langauge aims to set those out. You're confusing language with reality.

"The dog has fleas" is a true claim if and only if the dog has fleas.

It does not matter if we check or not. It does not matter if we know about it or not. The dog's having fleas would be "the instance", the state of affairs. Those events are not subject to our thought, language, nor mind in any way shape or form. Our becoming aware of it is another story.

A definition which all others necessarily converge/depend upon.

The false dichotomy between objective/subjective is part of the problem, and always has been. We are both objects in the world, and subjects taking a account of it. Truth is neither objective, nor subjective, those two terms have no place in a discussion of truth.

Truth is connective. It is central to all human thought, belief, and knowledge and therefore central to everything that has ever been or will be discussed.

Hot in relation to human skin anyway.

But "hot" is relative.

That subject is a huge can of worms.

To an individual human mind, truth is not subjective.

To the universal mind within which all things exist (A thinking universe) truth is subjective.