Are Facts inventions or discoveries?
And science seems to be telling us that all such symbols have fuzzy boundaries beyond which confidence decays into chaos if pushed too hard. So that within constraints one can gain very high reliability, and there will be a boundary beyond which the “Truth” under consideration fails to perform as expected.
That does seem to be the nature of this reality we find ourselves in.
We seem to be entities that are the result of a process of the differential survival of variants in different environments, and as such contain many levels of systems and heuristics that were sufficiently accurate to survive in the set of conditions of our past, but may not be sufficiently accurate to survive in our exponentially changing future.
Holding on too tightly to any idea of Truth seems to lower the probability of survival rather than enhance it.
Our systems seem to be heavily biased to recognising known pattern, and therefore are prone to mis-classifying the truly novel.
Our neurophysiology also seems to contain several levels of systems that tend to simplify options available to consciousness when under stress, which almost certainly had utility in our past when the stress came from something like a rapidly approaching predator, but has vastly less utility when stress comes from the failure of very complex systems that require the integration of multiple domains to gain useful insights (history, psychology, cosmology, QM, complexity, computation, biochemistry, cellular function, anatomy, physiology, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, deep neural nets, probability, philosophy, games theory and the deeper levels of strategy theory, complex adaptive systems, chaos, maximal computational complexity, etc).
Gaining some degree of confidence about what sort of contexts one is able to gain useful predictive insights about, and which are beyond the border of useful levels of predictability and within which one must simply accept whatever shows up, is at least as much art as science, and involves at least as much exploration of the internal idiosyncrasies of our bodies and brains and the many levels of influence on our personal subconsciously created models of reality that are our experiential reality, as it does any influences that do manage to make their way through that morass from external “reality” into our conscious awareness.
Such seems to be a reasonable sketch of the personal reality that each of us make what sense we can of.
When you add in the additional layer of the idea that evolution can embody knowledge in our biology, habits and cultures long before anyone has cognition of the presence or utility of that information, one should perhaps tend towards showing certain levels of respect to any biological or cultural artifact that has stood the tests of time and context, and at least give it the benefit of such doubt as one can identify (Jordan Peterson UoT does a rather nice job of this in his Maps of Meaning lecture series).