Question

I read in several places that if we adopt the position that the Torah is in an endless process of development, interpretation, and innovation, and that therefore disagreement among interpreters is necessary and positive rather than something negative arising from a historical accident, then it would follow that halakhic decision-making helps make Jewish law workable in practice and helps consolidate shared customs, but it does not determine the truth of one opinion over another.
 
But is that really necessary? Isn’t it possible to hold the view that disagreement is necessary and positive, while at the same time thinking that the role of decision-making is nevertheless to arrive at the truest possible ruling (in the eyes of the decisor)?