>
If this is the case, it's a mistake to try to put forward a fact as objective based on something that is "very often subjective".Pretty much. If such a thing as truly objective facts exists, I (and any other human) can only perceive and understand it through through the imperfect tools available to us. The mechanisms through which we perceive and understand reality are influenced by our lived experiences; nobody is immune to this. Of this, I am certain.
Incidentally, one of the various things I am certain of is that some of the things I am certain of are actually wrong.
> To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith.
I disagree, I don't think that logically follows from the former premise. It may be the case that somebody arguing logically and in good faith simply failed to perceive facts which, had they perceived them, would alter their logical conclusions.
As a concrete example: many people who view the video of WTC7 collapsing seemingly fail to notice that in the upper left corner of the building, sunlight is visible through the windows after the rooftop penthouse collapses, immediately preceding the total collapse of the building. That sunlight is visible through those windows is a fact, by my perception. When I point this out to people who believe WTC7 was demolished, the response is often that they never noticed it before I pointed it out. It doesn't therefore follow that they were previously arguing in bad faith or illogically; what it shows is that different people viewing the same video can acquire different sets of facts. Different sets of facts may lead to different good faith and logical conclusions. A fact that you are unaware of cannot be apart of your logical analysis of matters pertaining to that fact; the best you can do is maintain a general awareness that there may be relevant facts you aren't aware of.