Logic can tell you, to a certain extent, about cause and effect. It can tell you how to achieve objectives and what likely risks there are. Perhaps you can assign probabilities to possible outcomes.

It can't tell you what objectives are important nor what risks are acceptable. Those are both transitive properties: something is important to some people, something might be acceptable to some people.

There's no objective morality and no objective politics. Even if we try to limit discussion to "facts", things fall apart fairly rapidly once we start talking stochastic events and statistical morality. Controversial subjects get bogged down with duelling sets of statistics each making subtly different claims about causation.

One of the useful things about legal training is that it forces you to separate facts from law. Facts may be true or false but only law and ethics can make claims about what is right and wrong.

To take a stab at it, parent was talking about the difference between wisdom and intelligence. Or that there may be many facts which are applicable to a situation -- indeed, so many that various subsets can be used to justify a multitude of different responses!

Discerning which facts and therefore which course of action to take often involves a judgement call, a portion of which is attempting to know all applicable parties as individuals.

The portion in the original journal entry about filter bubbles and excising dissent from our daily experience speaks to this.

We cannot make wise decisions without knowing as much as possible about both those who disagree with us as well as those who agree with us. Because sometimes the "why" or "how" is as intellectually valuable as the "what".

(Not always, but more than none by a bunch!)

Saying that truth is just facts and logic is like saying that music is just maths. Yes, at some level, it is, but I'd rather listen to music actually made by musicians than mathematicians.