That is why one must always keep an open mind.

That not what I was addressing.
Of course I agree with that statement.

If you haven't read pretty much all she has written, then you have read less than I have.
You are not clear.

Why do you assume that what you conclude with rational/logical thinking is likely to be in error?
Where does the "whole truth" come from if not already there?
Knowledge is gathered with a full grasp of reality; why do you think they are in conflict?
Why would a rational person do anything based on a false premise (e.g. the world is flat)?
Why do you think we can't perceive reality objectively?

The question, of course is whether the conclusion you were able to draw matched the actual reality.

Having all the information necessary in dealing with real world issues is far more complex than one would hope. The reality is that you usually have to come to conclusions with far less than the whole truth and thus your conclusions are potentially in error.

Knowledge may be contextual but reality is what it is. You may be able to build a house utilizing the idea that the world is flat because in that context it makes no difference. But the reality is that the world is not flat and that the decisions you make based on the assumption that it is will, in different contexts, no longer work.

There is an actual reality that if we actually know what it is our decisions will be valid in all contexts.

I like that last part. =D

"Truth is that which corresponds to reality."
But the leftish philosophy holds that reality is subjective and is different for different people. If that is true (huh?) then there is nothing that is true, or for that matter false, so any answer is as good as any other answer and 2 + 2 = 3.14 or 4.13 or 1.34. Or 2+2 = 5 -- close enough.

Very well said. +1 because I can't give you any more.

You're missing a key point. When you debate someone and determining who is right and who is wrong, all participants collectively should have all the information necessary. One should be able to show where the other is wrong.
We can't look for information that is not available to us - knowledge is contextual.
I don't recall any time in my life where it was not possible to draw such a conclusion unless dealing with irrational people.

Deliciously simple response: I have never been proven wrong. Any one who says different is ... mistaken, misinformed, or making it up.

jeezus. I am cranky today will. so we will call it a day.

Colors are objective issues. They really exist as objective attributes of objects to the extent that they reflect specific frequencies of light. We measure them with imperfect sensory organs.

Once 'all' information is shared, you might well be able to determine right. The problem is that in all but trivial cases you can't be sure you have 'all' information. For example in any discussion of the economy we rely on economic statistics which have vast opportunities for error in their collection.

There is a flaw in the classic Sherlock Holmes rule that "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" that is that in the real world you can never be sure you've examined all the possibilities. There are always possibilities that you haven't identified.

It's very difficult to come up with a simple example that we will disagree on the conclusion and agree that we can legitimately disagree. I can probably come up with things that we will disagree on, but then we won't agree that they are examples!

Bwahaha. Sounds like my Dad who was famous for saying things like, "Of course I'm always right. I was wrong just once--back in 1955 when I thought I was wrong but was actually right. "

We are talking about objective issues, not colors et al. Once all information is shared, right can be determined. Questionable assumptions do not play a role here. E.g. in the GW debate, just look at the raw data and known causes and effects; no assumptions as those inputted in faulty models count.

+1 for truth

Really now...
"Those who think they are always right are
very irritating to those of us who are." ;)

Seriously, I apply the math (logic, values, philosophical principles and experience, if applicable) then I draw a line, add it up and the sum total is as close as I can arrive to truth at that moment in time. For me it is a process to arrive to a "truth" but you know it when you get there- laser burning sharp. That's what I loved about Rand, you could not escape her logic, you knew she was right.
This is a world of lazy thinkers. The "truth" requires "thinking" i.e., acquiring knowledge, processing, countering, calculating... all persistent hard work from which many abdicate.

Very often I find that what is "right" is often temporarily hidden by those who seek to change reality.

I know that I am right because eventually reality is on my side.

I love this! +1