And there's a difference between claiming to have a final answer and claiming to have a clue.
Actually, there isn't. How do you know that your "clue" is correct?

>YOU< "know" that it is because it fits your current world view.

In otherwords, you >THINK< you have a clue because you >THINK< your >OPINION< has some proximity to "The Truth".

Once again, circular logic. You have a clue because you are closest to being right and you're closest to being right because you have a clue.

But this fine distinction is lost on certain people.
The only thing I see being lost is you. You still don't understand that you're basing the validity of your opinion on the fact that it is >YOUR< opinion.

#1. Your opinion is valid because you have a clue.

#2. You have a clue because you evaluated the situation in the correct manner.

#3. You can tell it is the correct manner because you have a clue.

For me, truth is boolean, while knowledge of the truth is probabilistic.
Please try to use words that you understand.

And with enough input and intellectual honesty, we can converge on certainty.
This assumes that you are capable of evaluating correct input from incorrect input. Which gets back to your opinion.

I can entertain a philosophical doubt without being paralyzed by it.
And the characteristics of paralyzation are........?

So you are not paralyzed when you cannot answer my questions? Looks like a duck. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck.

If all you see is blurry shades of gray, adjust the focus already.
Chaos theory.

If you can't plot the curve, then gather some more data points already.
Chaos theory.

The data you evaluate is screened through your preconcieved opinion of what is valid and relevent and what is not.

By your definition, Clinton had the "Truth" for 8 years. How does this fit with your political ideology?