We are able to argue about facts primarily because humans interpret facts through the lens of their own beliefs, emotions, and experiences, which affects how facts are understood and valued. People tend to assemble facts that justify their existing beliefs or feelings, rather than accept facts objectively. This leads to disagreements even over what might be considered factual information because facts are often used to support personal narratives or identities rather than purely as objective truths. Additionally, the way facts are presented in arguments can trigger emotional responses that cause people to become defensive and resistant to changing their views. Thus, arguments about facts often reflect deeper conflicts about values, experiences, and perspectives rather than the facts themselves.
Psychological and Cognitive Reasons
- Humans are not purely rational but emotional beings who rationalize their feelings by selecting facts that align with those feelings. Facts are often cherry-picked or interpreted in ways that support one's existing worldview, a process known as motivated reasoning.
- When confronted with facts that challenge their beliefs, people may experience an emotional threat that triggers defensive mechanisms, making them double down on their original stance instead of changing their mind.
- Personal experiences often carry more weight in argumentation than abstract facts because experiences are seen as more genuine and harder to question, which is why people might prioritize them over factual data.
Philosophical and Epistemological Perspectives
- Facts can be disputed because human perception and belief systems influence how facts are understood. Different sensory experiences or cognitive frameworks can lead to different interpretations of what is factual.
- Beyond just facts, disagreement often arises from conflicting interpretations or conclusions drawn from those facts, which are influenced by individual values or emotions.
Communication and Social Dynamics
- Arguments about facts can be intensified by how facts are presented. Confrontational presentations can make people defensive, whereas more collaborative, empathetic communication styles can foster better understanding and reduce conflict.
- Sometimes, people argue about facts because facts are tied to identity or group membership, making disagreement feel like a personal or social threat.
In short, humans argue about facts not because facts lack objective reality, but because facts are interpreted through subjective lenses of belief, emotion, and experience, combined with social and psychological factors influencing how information is processed and valued.
