Facts are often overrated. They imply a connection with universal truths, but usually are nothing more than a consensus among a group of people committed to beliefs that the “facts” support.
It used to be believed that the Earth was flat, and was at the centre of the Universe, and that stars are windows into heaven, etc.
Plato, known as the father of philosophy, spends a great deal of his time examining the nature of “knowledge” and “truth” and demonstrates how “facts” are not necessarily to be believed. Firsthand experience is generally considered more reliable, for instance, but then it comes down to whom you believe when you hear two different accounts of the same alleged event.
Facts can be manipulated and distorted, see.
I strongly urge you to read “Propaganda” by Jacques Ellul. He writes out of the great French tradition, which has strong roots in Logic, itself founded on Plato.
You can insult my intelligence all you like, but in doing so, I would suggest that it speaks volumes about you.
It is you that insults my intelligence by refering to me as "a sheep"and claiming I "believe everything I am spoon fed" so stop acting the the victim.
As for the earth being flat and the stars being windows into the heavens, these ideas were based on a mixture of mysticism and religion. That was not based on fact, it was most likely based on the "personal experience" of watching the stars, sun and moon "move around our planet" and of people not moving across large oceans etc so these "personal experiences made sense.
It was the invention of telescopes and the development of maths that laid the foundation for ancient scholars to discover planets and working out that the earth was not the centre of the universe.
The "personal experience" ideas were constantly challenged as science developed during the Greek and Roman empire times.
By the middle ages the true was known due to scientific break throughs but the church lied to keep people in their place. People using science to understand and explain the world or to improve medicine for example were executed for witch craft.
To suggest that "personal experience" is a more reliable form than fact is simply a ticket down the rabbit hole.
"Personal experience" is what allows the likes of Trump to ignore scientific advice and make dangerous, factually incorrect statements which then get treated as being as valid as a scientic fact.
I ain't getting into a pissing contest about who has read what but I would suggest that their is a very big difference in reading something and understanding it.
You present your beliefs as facts, you dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as people been "sheep" or "spoon fed", you then complain of others "insulting you" and fail to provide any tangible facts or evidence to back up anything you say.
That is not philosophical, it is lazy.
