"Feelings" are subjective and different people do have different "feelings" about the same event, object, concept, etc. The postmoderndeconstructionist suggestion that any and all of these feelings are equally valid isn't a useful basis for scientific inquiry; it's more its antithesis. (Got both its and it's in the same sentence; they're both there in their correct spellings.)
All "feelings" are not equally valid. Some "feelings" have irrational causes; others do not. The postmodern deconstructionists have highjacked lowest-common-denominator "feeling" as a way to destroy rationality, to deny objective basis to any narrative, concept, doctrine, theory or even mode of existence.
If I have strong "feelings," Doc, it is because sometimes, it seems to me that I have stumbled onto something that is "objective" to my own internal states; that is, something that is independently valid without reference to my own narrow concerns and personal preferences. I am a lover of truth. That doesn't mean I always get everything "right." To my way of thinking, truth is not something that can be set down once and for all in doctrinal form; it is an open-ended quest. It is something that constantly draws one. Often as one goes down that road, new findings will present that require "course corrections" in one's former thinking.
I don't know if this makes any sense. If not, I apologize for the opacity of these remarks. I really do wish I could do better.
Thanks so much for writing, Doc.