A core anti-truth document is the 1951 essay, Two Dogmas of Empiricism, by Harvard philosopher and logician W. Quine.
The essay is widely praised, and even "regarded as the most important in all of twentieth-century philosophy".
The title says "two dogmas", but the essay says that they are the same. The dogma is that empirical knowledge can be distinguished from other kinds.
He concedes that some knowledge is true by simple logic, without recourse to empirical investigation, like:
(1) No unmarried man is married.But then he has a giant brain freeze trying to classify this:
(2) No bachelor is married.This seems to be true by definition and logic, because "bachelor" is synonymous with "unmarried man". But then he complains:
But it is not quite true that the synonyms 'bachelor' and 'unmarried man' are everywhere interchangeable salva veritate. Truths which become false under substitution of 'unmarried man' for 'bachelor' are easily constructed with help of 'bachelor of arts' or 'bachelor's buttons.' Also with help of quotation, thus:Therefore he argues that it is impossible to distinguish logical and empirical truths, and also that the whole program of scientific reductionism is invalid.
'Bachelor' has less than ten letters.
That's it. The argument is that stupid. Of course there are distinctions between logical and empirical truths, even tho the issues drive philosophers nuts. See my defense of logical positivism.
The English language is not as precise as mathematical logic. There are lots of synonyms in English, but that does not mean that they are substitutable in all contexts. Sometimes you need a little context to understand which meaning of a term is being used. This is a trivial observation. Those who praise this essay are morons. Or they are leftists who are ideologically opposed to objective truths.