[bilbo0s]

I think you're talking about humans, whereas the article was talking about reality.

Amount of CO2 in the air. Number of Rohingya killed. Amount of crude in Cantarell at this moment. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

What are the answers to those questions? What are the physical implications? (ie-what will the Earth physically do with all the CO2? There is definitely an answer to that question which is non-ideological and unbiased, and, unfortunately, only really known for certain by Mother Nature.) All such questions, in fact, have answers that are, very much, non-ideological, and unbiased. Unfortunately, they are not really perceptible by humans without help. Sometimes our science can help, sometimes our knowledge of psychology can help, etc. But that's where our ideologies will come in. Only human perception of these very physical states, and their implications, are ideological. Because the ideology is augmenting the base reality with something we can understand. Something comfortable and intuitive for us.

Sorry for rambling. I think someone else might be able to explain it better. But it's my best shot at explaining why I think AR is a pretty good analogy for ideology.