Analysis Of Why Facts Don T Change Our Minds

Defined by a myriad of components that integrally meld into a complex of knowledge, human nature exists as an enigma with seemly unrelated pieces. While initially, some of these components may seem to be antithetical, the ambiguity found within each individual dictates that even the most polar factors are closely interwoven as with the case of emotion and reason. This interconnection, and how it functions to formulate knowledge, is an integral capacity that allows mankind to explore the skepticisms that surround the discernment of truth. The article, “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” by Elizabeth Kolbert, depicts this ambiguous relationship between emotion and reason, but also piques the question: To what extent does emotion play a role in the formulation of reason? First and foremost, there exists ambiguity within the relationship of emotion and reason due to discrepancies found within psychological factors such as confirmation bias and the self-interest theory. This …show more content…
One cannot exist without the other as to a certain degree, emotion will always have reign over reason in the form of biases; These biases fabricate the ambiguity that is discerned from the relationship between reason and emotion within both bodies of shared and personal knowledge. In order to discern truth, one must first glean information, which reason and emotion then place credence behind this information to deem it as facts. These facts then are converted into personal and communal bodies of knowledge so that individuals and groups discern the value of truth. “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds” by Elizabeth Kolbert, argues this relationship and demonstrates that to a large extent, emotion is integral in the formulation of reason as one cannot occur without the