There's an old parable that teaches an important pattern for thinking about complex topics – it's called The Blind Men and an Elephant. I'll paraphrase it quickly in case you haven't heard the story:
A group of blind men happen across an elephant for the very first time. Each of them feels a different part of the elephant, a leg or a tusk, and they discuss their findings. As they try to understand what the elephant is they begin to argue. "It's smooth and hard like a rock" says one man. "That's not true at all, it's round and course like a tree" says the person who is feeling the leg.... And so on...
The story illustrates two simple concepts. First: you and I each have our own perspectives (tusk, leg) and neither of us is humanly capable of seeing from anything but our own viewpoint. Second: when reasoning about a topic (a trunk, e.g.), there is often a larger scope (the elephant) that puts that topic into an entirely different context.
Expanding this outward, we begin to see a pattern that's present across probably everything:
Scope – every subject is
Every subject is a part of some larger context somewhere, and every subject has
How can you be certain that something is correct, that you are looking at all angles of the situation, and that you aren't only zoomed in on your experience?
The answer is, of course, that most of the time it's impossible to be perfectly certain. I think the only sane approach is to consume all of the available information, find as many perspectives and contexts as possible, come to a best-approximation, and then continue to be humble and open minded about any new information.
This is a topic that routinely frustrates me because I very regular find
While it's possible for a question to have a single right or wrong answer, most topics have many different correct answers that depend entirely on the perspective and scope from which you look at them. In many arguements, both sides are right about some things and are simply looking at the topic from different angles or with a different level of magnification.
Everybody is right
I would argue that by changing the scope of a discussion it's possible to make everybody correct.