Yes, that's pretty much that. It's strange how few people seem to understand and accept that.

If you're going to argue P == NP, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests P != NP. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

If you are going to argue the universe can be described by local theories, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the evidence suggests the universe is non-local. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

If you are going to argue there is an absolute truth, you have to know damned well what you are talking about, because all the knowledge we have suggests that the concept in itself doesn't even make sense. You also have to accept some pretty strange consequences of your argument.

For most people, arguing there is an absolute truth, is like arguing you can make Houdini-like escapes. You can't and you'd drown. You know that, so you accept the consequence: you don't try an Houdini-like escape. In exactly the same way, people shouldn't try to argue there is absolute truth: it only leads to more confusion about truth and reality.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "absolute truth," because to me it seems you are arguing against either universal truths or possibly specifically considering "a truth" to be a statement made by some observer, rather than an actual state or condition?