My title was meant to be provocative, to get attention to the article, but it still makes a serious point. It's particularly aimed at absolutists -- people who think their beliefs are obvious and invariant.

We use, at best, fuzzy logic. Logic is a problem for computational cognition (aka "artificial intelligence"), too.

You said, "I can only provide facts backed by edivence. Nothing else is worth taking about." Are you sure you mean that? Not all beliefs are empirically based. Some are matters of philosophy -- what is moral? Others are matters of observation -- does that piece of clothing look blue or green? Or of preference -- Did you like that film? Are those things not worth talking about?