>"Policy X will help group Y in manner Z." While true that conditional statements about the future ("X will help") is not falsifiable, it is still a well forme

>"Policy X will help group Y in manner Z." While true that conditional statements about the future ("X will help") is not falsifiable, it is still a well formed if-then statement. The statement must be either true or false even though we can't derive a proof one way or the other. I disagree that we have to just throw our hands up and accept belief in unfalsifiable "subjective facts". I can easily fix your statement. Watch me: "Relevant organization W projects that policy X will help group Y in manner Z." Now your belief in "X helps Y in manner Z" is no longer blind but derived from trust in organization W. If you don't want to trust W you can dig deeper into their methods and data. There is no link in the chain that can only be filled in subjectively. >"Politician A voted against X" isn't necessarily as factual as it may seem since it's a common tactic to have X bundled in with a whole bunch of other things, and you don't know whether A voted against X, or voted against boondoggle B buried in the bill, or if X was in fact the only thing the politician agreed with in the entire bill and was forced to vote against it because everything ..." If you looked closely you would see "therefore politician A hates Y" is a false conclusion from a true premise. Not to victim blame here, but if true facts are leading someone to false conclusions then that's on them for being bad at critical reasoning. The facts aren't subjective. The flaw is in the wetware. Human brains have exploitable bugs. We call them "fallacies". The hotfix was released in the education system. It hasn't reached everyone yet. If the public can't be trusted to evaluate facts presented to them then the very premise of democracy is flawed anyway.