There is an underlying assumption that facts are evident and we should be guided to the same conclusion by them, which is false. The authors are acting like it

There is an underlying assumption that facts are evident and we should be guided to the same conclusion by them, which is false. The authors are acting like it is a new discovery that people can have widely different views in the light of the same facts, that people have different realities. They authors even quote Goethe who figured this out a couple hundred years ago, so it is sort of laughable. The article doesn't even touch the issue of the "fact-checkers" having bias themselves (who checks the checkers, as it were). Even more silly is the list of things on which people disagree. Climate change and vaccination are the only issues with a overwhelming scientific consensus. The other issues, like the economy, minimum wage increases, etc. all have substantial bodies of research supporting both sides of the argument. This book feels like a cash-grab, or maybe attention-grab.