> Humans can't agree on very basic facts I think most humans respect the scientific method and agree on many, if not most of the basic facts. What they disagre

> Humans can't agree on very basic facts I think most humans respect the scientific method and agree on many, if not most of the basic facts. What they disagree on is how those facts are interpreted, their importance (values), and actions or risk management decisions to take in light of those facts. Take the weather outside, as one non-controversial and simple example. It could be 69 degrees F outside. A Canadian used to ice fishing in the frozen tundra might view that as a beautiful warm day and an Australian who is used to strolling the desert searching for kangaroos to fight might see that as a miserable and unpleasant cold day. In this case, both people might respect the same basic fact of that temperature being 69 F, but have wildly different interpretations of what that actually feels like. Neither the Canadian or Australian is wrong even though they have wildly different viewpoints about the current weather. This completely applies to all of the most contentious scientific and other conflicts in society. Most disagreements are not about science or facts, but about what the facts mean and what's the best risk-management decision to make in light of those facts. PS: I could give many specific examples if desired, but would prefer not to poison the well with that because there's going to be somebody who is not mature enough to parse through the specific argument used and is just going to regurgitate their "team's" viewpoint in response to those examples.