Yes, and Yes (hence the "sure"). But what is misleading is that we're often led to believe that what we think or believe is somehow relevant or even important

Yes, and Yes (hence the "sure"). But what is misleading is that we're often led to believe that what we think or believe is somehow relevant or even important in light of valid objective statements and observations. It's important but it's separate, and it's truly only important to us (the importance of our own thoughts are personal). Evidence, once internalized, is analyzed through introspection, and hence internally maintaining the subjective-objective distinction requires discipline and practice. Without this distinction, it turns out we can quite effortlessly reason our way to most conclusions given any evidence, and this activity is mainly driven by our intentions and emotions. Herein lies the dangers of putting too much un-founded weight on thought. But when we let evidence determine the weight distribution of thoughts, we avoid this problem. It also turns out that good evidence is obvious, making it easy to remember and requiring little thought. Sherlock Holmes is my favorite example. His breakthroughs come primarily from observations and connecting dots (insight) [0], and not from deep questioning or deductive logic. Though important, those aren't actually that hard or productive or entertaining. Evidence is the originator, and the tangible of the two. Our imagination may take us anywhere (Einstein), but without evidence we'd get nowhere (scientific method). [0] Holmesian deduction consists primarily of observation-based inferences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_deduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Holmesian_dedu...