I only asked a rhetorical question.
"Bob thinks Andy is 9 feet tall" has a truth value independent of "Andy is 9 feet tall."
If bob says "I think Andy is 9 feet tall", the truth of that statement depends not on the height of Andy but rather on what Bob thinks. If Bob says "Andy is 9 feet tall," then the truth value of that statement has nothing to do with what Bob thinks but instead the height of Andy.
Very well put. I agree.
If people in a culture in fact collectively consider a 14yo an adult, we have to ask ourselves, "does that make it so?" If it does, we have a baseline for an objective (not absolute) truth. So, if someone in that culture says a 13yo is an adult, we can objectively demonstrate that false by showing the deviation from the actual objective truth.
If, on the other hand, it doesn't make it so, then the objective truth will be ascertained not when they're considered an adult but rather when they're an adult. For instance, suppose the culture is an anomaly and the rest of the world uses scientific reasoning to reach a consensus that reaching the age of 18 is an adult and is codified in law that way. In that case, considerations become moot and the objective truth will be in relation to what's codified.
People are too quick to claim subjectivity, and when relativity and absolutism gets thrown into mix, they're all too quick to claim subjectivism.
Lets see it with objectivity itself.
Biologically, a female is "adult" when reaches the capability of procreating, this is to say, the young "woman" is having her menstruation, then biologically she is an adult.
If there is a world consensus about the age when women become adults in base of biological findings, then the average age is 13 to 14 years of age, which was the average age that was used as consensus by the ancient cultures. It was not a "cultural thing alone" but based on their understanding of biology applied to humans.
There is no other "scientific method" to declare a person as adult as average age, like behavior, intelligence, intellect, knowledge, etc. The evidence is that there are many adults who are "dumb" so those requisites won't apply.
Women who won't menstruate at all or having their periods when they are seventeen years old are so few that the rule of 13-14 years of age will easily become the rule without much opposition.
From here, culture of the society will have influence. By means of "convenience" for allowing young women to finish basic education, then the age of adulthood can be delayed up to 18 years of age. But, this is a cultural thing, not a scientific based decision.
The objective part is a truth, from here, not because a "lie" but because convenience, the age of adulthood in a young woman can be established at 18 years of age.
The ones who consider their daughters as adults at 14 years of age are as correct than the ones who consider their daughters as adults at 18 years of age.
One is not calling the another "a liar", even when the objective part is the same in both cases, but in one of the sides what is considered is not the objective scientific truth but the convenience of the social status and opportunity for better education which are more important for them.
So, demonstration for the age when a young woman becomes an adult will support the early age of 14 years old, and no reason to declare that such a culture is an anomaly.
Laws are made for safety, order and also for convenience for progress. Over passing the truth obtained by scientific findings avoiding their validity in order to create some laws is really not creating a lie, but is in many cases the reaching for the best or what is the most convenient.
However, these same laws can't by any means impose themselves over the ones who prefer the following of scientific truths.
This is why there is so many controversies with several laws, because they are not founded properly over the objective but following convenience.
And, a bigger problem is when new laws contradict the established ones.
Check the case of a backer with his religion on his side by Constitutional right against a non Constitutional ever mentioned stipulation but a law generated by convenience, which is the marriage between members of the same sex.
Who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Actually both were made because convenience.
Whoever wins won't be the end of the story but the increase of the controversy. The only way to make peace is nullifying one of them, or the Constitutional right or the new law, otherwise more similar cases will appear.
Lets go then to applications.
Principles. Politicians must avoid creating laws against the already established principles.
Lies. When one says a lie, must be sure never to be caught, otherwise...
This topic... is going nowhere.