Mr. Lucky posts to his timeline: If only we had a seasonally appropriate story about middle eastern people seeking refuge and being turned away.
Nicely done, I think, and indicate approval. As do a couple of others.
But very soon, not surprisingly, comes the dark side. "Why are they all young men? What about women and children first? Think about it."
Absurd, of course. I'm a librarian, so immediately I go looking for facts. I quickly find them from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. 50.5% women, 38.5% under the age of 12. I post that.
Did I expect the dark side to express gratitude and surprise? Well, no.
He just says, "Sure they are."
Mr. Lucky bans & blocks him. This is good for Mr. Lucky's page and the friends who hang out there, but the dark side remains. Unmoved.
How do we know what we know? How do we know that we can trust it?
My way of knowing is constructed from a set of principles developed in Europe over several centuries, starting with the Greek invention of symbolic logic and the beginnings of an empirical approach to science, a way of looking at the world that comes to fruition in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That way of looking at the world leads me immediately to search for verifiable objective facts, to balance competing narratives using logical principles, leavened by appeals to trusted authority.
But that's just one way of looking at the world. It "works" in the sense that it provides an epistemological underpinning for Western science & engineering that enables us to manipulate the world pretty effectively to improve health and physical comfort -- along with building extremely effective tools of destruction. Those of us who follow this path believe that it gives us an accurate picture of the world. It leads to true knowledge. (It is, however, pretty useless for answering questions about morality or the meaning of life.)
So what of someone who rejects all that? What if one's epistemological principle is to rely on intuition and how one feel about the world? Rather than building knowledge empirically, using logic, construct it from emotion, a sense of tribe, an appeal to religion, history and family. Knowledge comes from who one is and the place one occupies in the world. Perhaps the goal is not to test knowledge, but to keep it safe. Use information to reinforce a construct of the world that is organic and that rejects western logic altogether. Make judgments about facts in an entirely different way -- accept those that reinforce one's views and reject those that challenge them. Rather than an appeal to some objective reality, to logic or science, measure facts against the reality that one already knows to be true. Proceeding in this way makes my views ever stronger, makes my hold on reality -- my reality -- that much more solid.
I can't argue against this using my tools of logic and empiricism. My appeal to the UNHCR is useless. Since my antagonist already knows that the refugees are all young men, the facts that I present are evidence that the UNHCR cannot be a trustworthy source. I think my facts will undermine his beliefs; instead, his beliefs invalidate my facts.
The rationalist says, "You're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts." And so the rationalist looks at the comment threads in frustrated bewilderment, throwing more and more facts, never wavering in the belief that eventually facts and logic must win. They must. Otherwise, how is knowledge even possible?
And yet, it is apparent that for many people, belief comes first. Then one chooses one's facts. The rationalist has no way to counter this. I can say this is illogical. My antagonist counters, That's your problem.