I automatically presumed, when you said "never" that you were making a claim about the future based on induction.

But you were actually making an analytic statement about the unavoidable relationship between theory and All reality. If something is true analytically, it is always true (hence your use of future-reference word "never"). So I was wrong to claim you had made an inductive statement.

However, for something less than 'All reality'; you can know a correct interpretation of reality.
"John drives a red car" can be your interpretation of reality and can be the truth about that small piece of reality. The "theory" "John drives a red car" can never be the same thing as John who actually drives a red car- but it can correctly match the physical reality and so the reality be truly known.

True reality is "what is", and "what is" includes "your chosen matches of pattern- the fact you made those matches (whether mistaken or not). As I said in "Just a minute"- "mind" is a verb; and it is known as "the reductive fallacy" to claim that a necessary condition for "A" is the same as "A".

-dolphin

This comment applies to all reality, but does not exclude complete accurate pattern-matching with some reality: "However, in so far as a 'theory' of nature is not exactly the same as nature (if it was it would not be a theory, it would BE nature) then of course such a theory is incomplete (or it would BE nature).