I'm hoping for some help understanding the concept of objective truth, or more specifically, what kinds of conclusions can be accurately described as objectively false:
If the reasoning for an argument includes a logical fallacy, then the conclusion is logically invalid, and therefore objectively false. Is that right, to describe that conclusion as "objectively false"?
What if it doesn't include a fallacy, but does include an assumption, or a subjective interpretation of circumstantial evidence? Is that objectively false, or merely, not objectively true?
Is any conclusion that's not objectively true, arrived at through inductive reasoning, therefore objectively false, or is the distinction not as absolute as that? (And/or am I over-stating the subjectiveness of inductive reasoning?)
