¿Cierto o Falso?

So a very interesting thought crossed my mind today, and I just have to talk about it. It strikes me as a concept that I wouldn't have thought of unless someone else had mentioned it--so I'm glad he did.

A mentor of mine said, in his own words, that when I was in his class, I did not use fact to back up my arguments.

He's exactly right. I didn't, and even though I've gotten better, I still lack in that area. It's not inexplicable, though. Inexcusable, maybe, but not inexplicable.

For one, I had never learned how to back up arguments. Logic and reason failed me, because I'd never actually understood how to use them. I can still remember the first day that this mentor taught us that "if x is y, and y is z, then x is z"--law of transitivity. I thought it was amazing. I was stunned by the clarity that such a simple statement made.

It made sense.

From that point on, I began to learn. I started to figure out how to use support to make my ideas clearer. It began to click, and I became analytical.

But it wasn't just because I was ignorant. No, there was much more than stupidity holding me back. Like the idea that emotion made more sense to me than fact.

It's true. As ridiculous as it sounds, to me, emotional appeal seemed more logical than straight fact. Don't be so surprised. I live in a world of emotion. Having the slight advantages that I do when it comes to perception [been there, discussed that], I know how to manipulate the feelings of others. I can fight simply by using emotions.

It doesn't work in logic, though. Intense feeling and logic cannot reasonably combine without decreasing the validity of an argument. I didn't know that. I figured that they were one and the same, equivalent in value and effect. Wrong.

But I've learned. I'm much more logical now. I've dealt with emotion and learned how to suppress its influence on me. It's all good.

Yet I said that I still lack in fact. It's true. I could be a lot more emotionally detached and reasonable in my arguments. And I'm not, for a very distinct [and logical!] reason.

The concept of "fact" has come to evade me entirely. Why else would I call my blog "still finding reality"? The experiences I've been through, the situations I've been in, have taught me to expect the impossible, rely on the improbable, and question anything that is considered "fact."

It's hard to back up an argument with fact when I can't even begin to describe what "fact" entails. Sure, there are obvious conclusions, often brought forth by science. The sky is blue because the atmosphere refracts blue wavelengths of light. The ocean is blue because it reflects the blue sky. The fish in the ocean are not always blue because they do not always reject ["give off"] blue wavelengths.

These, among many other things, are straight fact. They're observations of the world, turned into theories by intellectuals [mostly, anyway] and then transformed into laws and concepts when applicable.

But outside of the cut-and-dry stuff, apart from the obvious, I don't know what's fact or fiction. Hell, I even doubt some of that obvious stuff. Does everyone see the same color when we classify the sky as "blue"? If there are clouds, does the sky cease to be blue? If a tree falls in an unoccupied forest, does it make a sound?

It's so mind-boggling. Everything about the universe that I have accepted as true is now being tested, and all too often disproved. Even my own mind makes me wonder sometimes. My capabilities, as well as those of other people, astound me sometimes.

What's fact? Can I learn it? Can I use it? I try to do both. I try. I can't be rid of emotion entirely, nor can I know every "fact" there is to know. But I'm making a conscious effort to try harder.

Ah, logic. Good ol' eighth grade.