Yes. That is an implication (realisation) of the statement. A few things tend to happen when presented with this idea. One is that the way an individual has constructed their intellectual argument for what “truth” is and how to arrive at it gets challenged. Most personal truth seeking systems involve clinging to priors and culling new ideas quickly as a support/defence mechanism. It’s rare to find yourself in a place where you can hold two or more competing ideas/theories/arguments for long periods of time for the purpose of impartial analysis. I would argue that a persons concept of truth is being constantly manufactured, either via additive or subtractive intellectual methods. An individual’s current perception of truth is the result of on ongoing process of accepting or rejecting known or new information. The implication is that it is possible to encounter new information or have an experience that does not intellectually support a person’s model of truth which presents the individual an opportunity to change/tweak their truth scaffolding. I have come to the conclusion that holding two potentially contradictory truths simultaneously does not destroy the concept of truth. Rather, at any one time, a person’s “truth” is restricted to their limited experiences, cognitive abilities, predetermined encounters etc. and that the optimal “intellectual posture” is one of being ready to move to the next “truth position.”