There are no “facts”, there is no “objectivity” and most of all, there is no “absolute reality”. It’s unscientific nonsense.
“Facts” is what non-scientists use not only for a theory whose predictions were observed enough to be above their very personal trustworthiness threshold, but also everything they read, hear or see, provided it comes from an “authority”. And we all know that “authority” is just another word for “someone who has not gained our trust on the subject matter, but tells us who to trust on it”. I’m sure this just screams out “circular reasoning“ and “non-sequitur” to everyone.
But even observations about theories don’t mean what people think they mean. Which brings me to the next point:
“Objectivity” is what people call something that shows both sides of the coin with their own personal bias. ^^ And actually, if you ask most people, they don’t give a rat’s ass about showing both sides. All they care about is that it is in harmony with their personal model of reality. That’s what they call “neutral”. And everything that deviates from it, is “biased”.
But the thing is: They have to
. They have no choice. Because the “absolute truth/reality” on which their “objectivity/neutrality” is based, just as much does not exist. So the only thing that’s left to compare things with, is their own model of reality / view of the world. (Those who know their neurology, know why this is “neutral” from their p.o.v..)
The problem is, that while there are some rules which worked everywhere and for everyone for now, in practice, they nearly don’t mean anything at all. For practical purposes, it matters, that we all observe reality through a set of senses. Those are themselves strongly processing the data, introducing bias left and right. This is a problem because there is no way to ever get around them. One can’t observe the world directly. Ever. And even if one would, the brain is actually nothing more than a huge bias machine. It literally can’t process neutral input. Since it can only store and process the bias/difference from neutral. So neutral input is like the 1 in multiplication. And even if it could process neutral input, it would still be from its own personal point of view
. Which, as relativity theory makes clear, well, relative
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Because in reality, it is just infeasible to observe everything on your own. In reality, nearly everything of what we think we know, comes from other “sources”. Without any verification. Unless you call even more “sources” telling the same “verification”. (Which would mean falling into “argumentum ad populum” fallacy territory.)
Most of us haven’t touched a hot cooking plate, never fell from a 10-story building, and never actually did see our elected officials or a quantum entanglement with our own eyes.
We trust our own “sources”. Because we deem them to be “reliable”.
But here’s the problem: Reliable for whom? (My English grammar still isn’t that good, so I apologize if this looks deeply wrong to you native speakers. I hope you know what I meant anyway.
As we established, reliability and trustworthiness are relative and personal. So saying “reliable sources” in an absolutist way, is a “argument from authority” fallacy, and just screams “egocentric world view” and “god complex”. Unless personally trusted, those sources don’t make anything more trustworthy or true from your p.o.v., than as if their content was stated directly in the article.
It's shocking (bud sadly to be expected) that people are so dumb that they don’t realize all this on their own. It’s so crazy obvious, simple, and should jump everyone right in the face. But apparently it doesn’t and isn’t.
Which is why I stopped looking at the world the way I did before. I call everything
just a theory/hypothesis, and instead of talking in terms of “facts”, “truth” and “objectivity”, I talk in terms of “consistency (in terms of logic)”, “trustworthiness” (especially when not directly observed by myself) and especially “what’s in it for me?”. Because in the end, it all comes down to how much that information helps us to predict the future, and how much that actually helps us succeed in growth, reproduction, and natural selection.