The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

[Veritas Aequitas]

If all facts are 'entangled with the human conditions', why are natural science knowledge and descriptions the most credible? Of what is empirical evidence evidence?

Despite having its limitation and weaknesses, scientific facts, truths and knowledge from the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and reliable.
Besides the comparable Mathematics FSK, what other Framework and System of Knowledge is more credible and reliable than the scientific FSK?

The credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK is grounded on empirical evidences and its processes and implied constitution.

Whatever is scientific facts they are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK emerged from human activities and is managed and sustained by human activities and intersubjective consensus.
Thus whatever are scientific facts, they are entangled with and not independent of the human conditions of the collective.

Scientific facts are conditioned to the collective, thus, independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments, so, by definition is Objective.

What is known and the description of scientific facts, truths or knowledge is not the critical issue here.

Here is the relevant point;
Reality is ALL-there-is.
At one fundamental level of reality, all are merely a 'soup' of fundamental particles without differentiation into separate things or objects.
Even at present when things are observed as independent things from one another and from humans, the fundamental reality is all these separate things are in a common soup of particles with no differentiation except they are of different density.

While you are conscious you are Peter Holmes, at present you are exchanging molecules, atoms, quarks within that soup of reality.
As such, within a few years what you are made of now would have been replaced by new particles from outside or even from other people.

Now when you are facing say supposedly an apple on the table, in a more precise perspective of reality this state of affairs is merely the interaction of two bundles of fundamental particles, i.e. you [as a bundle of particles] connected to the apple [the other particles].
This is a real experience which you are not conscious of.
Surely you cannot deny this is a state of reality and experienced?
This state of reality is a matter of fact but it can only be a scientific FSK conditioned fact because only the scientific FSK can frame the concepts of fundamental particles.

With reference to "the moon" and you;
at the most fundamental human conditioned FSK, there are only two dense clusters of fundamental particles, i.e. you and the other bundle of particles which are not separated but in a continuum within the soup of reality.

That the moon only exists when you "look" at it is because of the interaction of your current human nature as originated from 4 billion years of evolution.
When a bat look at 'the moon' the bat do not cognize the same image as you see 'the moon'.

Within humanity there are different FSKs, an amazonian primitive with its specific human FSK will realized a different 'fact-of-the-moon' from one who is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.

This is what I meant there is no real moon as a fact that is independent of the human conditions because at the most fundamental level of reality, everything is interconnected with each other and whatever the fact, it emerged as conditioned to a human FSK, as such cannot be independent from the human conditions.

As such, as explained above, all facts are entangled with the human conditions.
Not sure you understand [not necessary agree with] the above?

You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above before you make any critique else it will be the usual strawmen from you.

Why you cannot understand or if understand, cannot agree, is due to psychology driven by an inherent existential angst.

None of this answers my question.

It is indisputable, whilst scientific facts has weaknesses, at their best, they are the most credible and reliable facts at present.
The argument for the above is public knowledge.

I have explained above, there are two senses to what is fact i.e.;

1. Your fact as "feature of reality" which is an illusion, meaningless and nonsense.

2. The above scientific fact; I explained above why it is entangled with the human conditions grounded on the principles of the Big Bang [Physics-FSK] and evolution [Biology-FSK].
Do you understand [not agree with] my explanation?
If you can paraphrase what you understand and I will explain further if you have not got it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please address the argument given, not the argument you want me to have given.

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

"REAL " facts???

Define "REAL" facts to me?

Aren't scientific facts, real facts?

or
You insist PH's definition of 'what is fact' is the 'real fact'?
I have argued above PH's 'what is fact' is illusory, meaningless and nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

this has more of the "Schrodinger's cat" theory. if something is not gazed upon aka-perceived, then it cannot be reality. id never believe the sky was blue if i always looked down and never saw an upward facing reflection

There is more to the above.

The apparent 'perceiver' as independent from "the-perceived" are actually two clusters of generic particles within the 'soup' of reality [all-there-is].

Analogically; the many blobs curdles within a bowl of milk are all part and parcel of one thing, i.e. the bowl of milk. If one of the curdle happened to gain self-consciousness it will insist it is independent from other blobs of curdle.
The same is happening with humans [blobs of particles with the soup of reality] whilst ignorant they are interdependent with all other humans and things in reality.

The point with "Schrodinger's cat" and 'blue sky' is they are ultimately not independent realities but at the ultimate level, they are entangled with the human conditions on the principle that all things are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].

[Peter Holmes]

Despite having its limitation and weaknesses, scientific facts, truths and knowledge from the scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and reliable.
Besides the comparable Mathematics FSK, what other Framework and System of Knowledge is more credible and reliable than the scientific FSK?

The credibility and reliability of the scientific FSK is grounded on empirical evidences and its processes and implied constitution.

Whatever is scientific facts they are conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The scientific FSK emerged from human activities and is managed and sustained by human activities and intersubjective consensus.
Thus whatever are scientific facts, they are entangled with and not independent of the human conditions of the collective.

Scientific facts are conditioned to the collective, thus, independent of any individual's opinions, beliefs and judgments, so, by definition is Objective.

What is known and the description of scientific facts, truths or knowledge is not the critical issue here.

Here is the relevant point;
Reality is ALL-there-is.
At one fundamental level of reality, all are merely a 'soup' of fundamental particles without differentiation into separate things or objects.
Even at present when things are observed as independent things from one another and from humans, the fundamental reality is all these separate things are in a common soup of particles with no differentiation except they are of different density.

While you are conscious you are Peter Holmes, at present you are exchanging molecules, atoms, quarks within that soup of reality.
As such, within a few years what you are made of now would have been replaced by new particles from outside or even from other people.

Now when you are facing say supposedly an apple on the table, in a more precise perspective of reality this state of affairs is merely the interaction of two bundles of fundamental particles, i.e. you [as a bundle of particles] connected to the apple [the other particles].
This is a real experience which you are not conscious of.
Surely you cannot deny this is a state of reality and experienced?
This state of reality is a matter of fact but it can only be a scientific FSK conditioned fact because only the scientific FSK can frame the concepts of fundamental particles.

With reference to "the moon" and you;
at the most fundamental human conditioned FSK, there are only two dense clusters of fundamental particles, i.e. you and the other bundle of particles which are not separated but in a continuum within the soup of reality.

That the moon only exists when you "look" at it is because of the interaction of your current human nature as originated from 4 billion years of evolution.
When a bat look at 'the moon' the bat do not cognize the same image as you see 'the moon'.

Within humanity there are different FSKs, an amazonian primitive with its specific human FSK will realized a different 'fact-of-the-moon' from one who is conditioned upon a scientific FSK.

This is what I meant there is no real moon as a fact that is independent of the human conditions because at the most fundamental level of reality, everything is interconnected with each other and whatever the fact, it emerged as conditioned to a human FSK, as such cannot be independent from the human conditions.

As such, as explained above, all facts are entangled with the human conditions.
Not sure you understand [not necessary agree with] the above?

You need to understand [not necessary agree with] the above before you make any critique else it will be the usual strawmen from you.

Why you cannot understand or if understand, cannot agree, is due to psychology driven by an inherent existential angst.

None of this answers my question.

It is indisputable, whilst scientific facts has weaknesses, at their best, they are the most credible and reliable facts at present.
The argument for the above is public knowledge.

I have explained above, there are two senses to what is fact i.e.;

1. Your fact as "feature of reality" which is an illusion, meaningless and nonsense.

2. The above scientific fact; I explained above why it is entangled with the human conditions grounded on the principles of the Big Bang [Physics-FSK] and evolution [Biology-FSK].
Do you understand [not agree with] my explanation?
If you can paraphrase what you understand and I will explain further if you have not got it.

To repeat, you haven't answered my question:

If all facts are 'entangled with the human conditions', why are natural science knowledge and descriptions the most credible? Of what is empirical evidence evidence?

Of what is public knowledge knowledge? What makes physics credible, the absence of which makes astrology not credible?

What does 'entanglement' actually mean in this context? Is it physical entanglement? Or is it a metaphor? And if it's the latter, what value can a physical theory built on a metaphor have?

[Veritas Aequitas]

None of this answers my question.

It is indisputable, whilst scientific facts has weaknesses, at their best, they are the most credible and reliable facts at present.
The argument for the above is public knowledge.

I have explained above, there are two senses to what is fact i.e.;

1. Your fact as "feature of reality" which is an illusion, meaningless and nonsense.

2. The above scientific fact; I explained above why it is entangled with the human conditions grounded on the principles of the Big Bang [Physics-FSK] and evolution [Biology-FSK].
Do you understand [not agree with] my explanation?
If you can paraphrase what you understand and I will explain further if you have not got it.

To repeat, you haven't answered my question:

If all facts are 'entangled with the human conditions', why are natural science knowledge and descriptions the most credible? Of what is empirical evidence evidence?

Of what is public knowledge knowledge? What makes physics credible, the absence of which makes astrology not credible?

What does 'entanglement' actually mean in this context? Is it physical entanglement? Or is it a metaphor? And if it's the latter, what value can a physical theory built on a metaphor have?

As I had stated, science itself has its limitations and weaknesses.

If you are a rational person, you would have known scientific [with mathematics] knowledge, truths, and facts [natural sciences] are the most credible and reliable in contrast to other non-scientific knowledge.
It is an insult to your intelligence and rationality if you have doubts on the above.

I asked ChatGPT, here is the common knowledge:

Science, together with mathematics, is a highly credible and reliable source of facts, truths, and knowledge about the natural world. This is because science relies on systematic observation, experimentation, and rigorous testing of hypotheses, which allows scientists to make objective and evidence-based claims about the world.

Scientific knowledge is also subject to a rigorous process of peer review, in which other scientists review and scrutinize the methods and results of scientific studies before they are published in reputable scientific journals. This helps to ensure that scientific claims are accurate, reliable, and can be reproduced by other researchers.

In contrast, non-scientific knowledge, such as history, politics, and legal knowledge, relies more on interpretation and subjective analysis of information. While these fields can provide valuable insights into human behavior, culture, and society, they may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of evidence and testing as scientific knowledge.

It's worth noting, however, that there are limits to what science can tell us. While science is very good at explaining natural phenomena and making predictions based on empirical data, it may not be well-suited to answering questions about values, ethics, and subjective experiences. In these cases, we may need to rely on other sources of knowledge, such as philosophy, ethics, and the humanities.

In summary, while science is a highly credible and reliable source of knowledge about the natural world, it's important to recognize the limitations of scientific inquiry and to use a range of sources and disciplines to gain a more complete understanding of the world.

The issue is you claimed, facts are feature of reality which is independent of individuals' feelings, opinions, beliefs and judgment.

Entanglement in this case means, scientific facts in contrast to your illusory-facts cannot be independent of the human conditions. I have already explained this concept of entanglement above, you cannot get it?

Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.

We could never find them [Laws of Nature] in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.

Kant in CPR A125

As such scientific facts are not independent of the human conditions because somehow the human conditions are entangled with the emergence of the Law of Nature.

Before you use your kindergarten mind to critique the above, you need to first understand [not agree with] Kant thoroughly, else you will only make an intellectual fool.

I refer again [1000th times] to Model Dependent Realism;

It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Note "meaningless", I would add, your idea of fact is illusory and nonsensical.

That "true reality" referred in the above quote is that which you are referring as 'fact' a feature of reality that is supposedly independent of any model or description of it.

This fact of yours is only a thought in your heard which no human will ever realize as real.
If you postulate such an independent fact as feature of reality, you are inevitably involved with a correspondence theory of truth and mirroring - no matter how much you deny it.

[Sculptor]

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

"REAL " facts???

Define "REAL" facts to me?

No YOU define real. It's your fucking word!

Aren't scientific facts, real facts?

or
You insist PH's definition of 'what is fact' is the 'real fact'?
I have argued above PH's 'what is fact' is illusory, meaningless and nonsense.

[Toppsy Kretts]

this has more of the "Schrodinger's cat" theory. if something is not gazed upon aka-perceived, then it cannot be reality. id never believe the sky was blue if i always looked down and never saw an upward facing reflection

There is more to the above.

The apparent 'perceiver' as independent from "the-perceived" are actually two clusters of generic particles within the 'soup' of reality [all-there-is].

Analogically; the many blobs curdles within a bowl of milk are all part and parcel of one thing, i.e. the bowl of milk. If one of the curdle happened to gain self-consciousness it will insist it is independent from other blobs of curdle.
The same is happening with humans [blobs of particles with the soup of reality] whilst ignorant they are interdependent with all other humans and things in reality.

The point with "Schrodinger's cat" and 'blue sky' is they are ultimately not independent realities but at the ultimate level, they are entangled with the human conditions on the principle that all things are intricately part and parcel of reality [all there is].

though still, not perceiving the existence of the cat and the blue sky wouldn't be apart of "all there is" because we have yet to perceive them.

[Iwannaplato]

Not the point.

Well I was going by the word 'same' in same mechanism.

The point was that there is no doubt a better (more natural and mind-based) explanation for how the three-dimensional features of the universe are explicated (decoded) from nebulous fields of quantum information - something better than the "collapse" model - something more akin to how the eye of our mind decodes the informational fields of our own thoughts and dreams.

There seems to be a history based (and projected based) guessing in the blanks involved. With perhaps a bit of Sheldrake's habits tossed in. (I'm guessing you've read Sheldrake given the things you cover and how you cover them. I'm not trying to be gnomic and I can explain it more clearly, just short cutting).

Sort of like how we fill in our blind spots with what we guess would fit there. (the literal blind spot)

Besides, you say dreaming is "mononsensory," yet you then go on to explain that you yourself have experienced the involvement of all five of your senses during a dream - hence, dreams can be a "multi-sensory" experience, regardless of them not being quite as real as this outer reality.

I responded to this in a different post. I don't think you've responded to that one yet.

The ultimate point is that our senses are rooted in our minds, which means that our material eyes (vision), skin (touch), ears (hearing), tongue (taste), nose (smell), are but mere "windows" through which our five corresponding inner-senses can reach out and experience what I suggest is the extremely advanced (highly ordered) mental holography of the higher (Berkeleyan-ish) Being implied in the concept of panentheism, as is metaphorically depicted in one of my illustrations...

I don't know what's going on. I suspect sometimes that even the past is getting rewritten and that right now and here we have sort of habitted our way down to a very rigid and mucky version of reality. I realize that's pretty fringe and I certainly can't demonstrate it, but I have a sense it is the case. Though at other times, I think other things are going on or are true ontologically.

How?

I'm not meaning to be overly critical of your take on reality because I agree with much of it. However, I am truly interested in hearing you explain what (cognitive?) aspect of pantheism not only grabbed hold of the fabric of reality and shaped it into this unthinkably stable setting...

Well, I think the whole thing has consciousness and this is unified (and that is God) and then going all the way down there are individual consciousnesses that are parts of God. Individuals that are also parts. Sort of like Ken Wilbur's holons. I am again guessing you are familiar with his work given your diagrams and some of what you've written, but I can go beyond this shorthand if necessary. So, I think consciousness is a facet of what gets called matter all the way down. This doesn't mean that atoms have plans and desires, which I see and functions of minds that require greater complexity in organization, but that they would have rudimentary awareness. So, there are awareness all over the place. I could call this panpsychism as you suggested and I certain agree with that also. I just started with pantheism because I beleive the whole is conscious and aware and in some sense an individual.

I don't try to work this all out. I spend much more of my energy trying to overcome the problems I have and how this is all really organized I don't think matters too much, at least not to me and what I need most right now. But it's generally how I view it. I wouldn't bother to mention this stuff here to most people because it's too fringe for them. But given you are fairly fringey yourselft, why not.

I supppose I could avoid 'fringe'. If the dominating worldviews hadn't killed off indigenous groups and tried to smash and convert and boarding school them out of their beliefs at least some of our beliefs would not be fringe but everyday.

I suppose sometimes I am a panentheist also. I can have a sense that it must entail an outside or beyond.

But when I wake up in the morning my challenges and practices do not hinge on me deciding between the two, so I don't.

I also could say that I think our own minds have parts that are individuals but also parts. I think some of this is from damage and part of my challenges is undoing this damage.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"REAL " facts???

Define "REAL" facts to me?

No YOU define real. It's your fucking word!

WTF, I have already defined 'what is real' here;

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

If you don't agree that scientific facts are real facts as I had claimed, then you define 'what are real facts' to you?

[Peter Holmes]

I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

What are the things you call facts 'which can be known and described via a framework and system of knowledge'? Just saying how we can know them doesn't explain what they are.

And why is the science framework and system of knowledge 'the most credible and reliable'? What has science got - or got more of - that other disciplines lack, or have less of?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

What are the things you call facts 'which can be known and described via a framework and system of knowledge'? Just saying how we can know them doesn't explain what they are.

I have explained the above many times, but somehow you did not understand [not necessary agree with] it nor did you respond to it.

My point whether we call facts ' 'which can be known and described via a framework and system of knowledge' are not facts in themselves, i.e. independent of the human conditions.
This is because we are the "co-creators" of those things we call 'facts' via the FSK.

I posted this recently:

Yes, in general, "Knowledge is a representation of reality" or fact,
but in another more refined perspective, it is;
Knowledge by a subject is a representation of reality, of which the subject is a co-creator of that reality.

Take the obvious example,
If you create a chair [reality], then you have knowledge of that chair [reality] which you are the creator of.

A more refine version of co-creator or reality;
Reality is all-there-is, i.e. including you therein.
We have reality at t1 - a specific state of affairs of the universe in all there is with your therein.
Then you cough at t2.
At t3, we have a different reality [all there is] because your cough have changed reality from at t1 to t3.
Your cough had contributed subsequently to a hurricane in Florida [Chaos Theory] at t4.
You then see for your self [video report] and thus has knowledge of that hurricane at t5.

From the above sequence of events,
isn't it true that you were the co-creator [at t2] of that reality at t3 which you subsequently have knowledge of at t5?
Do you agree with the above?

The above is undeniable but you may ask,
what about when there were no humans?
You can trace this back to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
But note, the Big Bang is conditioned upon the Science-Physics FSK.
Since any FSK is conditioned upon human conditions,
whatever or whichever ways, it is ultimately linked to the human conditions and human as co-creators.

As Model Dependent Realism asserted it is meaningless to talk about any "true reality" that is independent of the human conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

According to Kant, to chase for such for 'true reality' [thing in itself] is chasing illusions, and being insistence and dogmatic about it is delusional.

Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" can be applied to the above.

To get a better of this truth, I suggest you read the following [quoted earlier];

Note this thread;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili

Note Kant;
Kant: Laws of Nature, We Ourselves Introduce [CPR A125]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33772

Note this post re the merging of subject with object:
viewtopic.php?p=624583#p624583

What is your counter to the above?

And why is the science framework and system of knowledge 'the most credible and reliable'? What has science got - or got more of - that other disciplines lack, or have less of?

Actually it is insulting to oneself for a rational person to ask the above question.
If you ever want to ask the above again, refer to this OP;

Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

[MagsJ]

All that exists, exists.

All that exists, exists.. whether a human gaze touches upon it or not, but it is our mind that is oblivious to its existence.. or not. The Universe does not need an observer, to do its thing.. all humans do is explain existence/reality/the how, not create it or explain the why.

Yes.. very Schrödinger, much.

[Sculptor]

Define "REAL" facts to me?

No YOU define real. It's your fucking word!

WTF, I have already defined 'what is real' here;

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

If you don't agree that scientific facts are real facts as I had claimed, then you define 'what are real facts' to you?

What is a scientific fact?

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

[Iwannaplato]

I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

What are the things you call facts 'which can be known and described via a framework and system of knowledge'? Just saying how we can know them doesn't explain what they are.

And why is the science framework and system of knowledge 'the most credible and reliable'? What has science got - or got more of - that other disciplines lack, or have less of?

And what FSK compares the effectiveness/accuracy of different FSKs? Wouldn't that one be the most credible? Or can one use one FSK to determine it is more effective than other FSKs? IOW can science determine that science is the most credible? (and heck, the words reliable and credible might needs some looking at too. Credible means able to be believed. Heck we might find that advertising 'logic/presentation is the most credible FSK, and religions have been remarkably effective in creative belief and still are. Reliable also is a quite flexible concept without further clarification)

I'm not sure what the answers are, but I think these need answers and justification.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No YOU define real. It's your fucking word!

WTF, I have already defined 'what is real' here;

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

Sculptor: "The moon exists. That is a fact."
I did not bother with your sense of fact because that is an illusion,
see:
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Therein and in the above,
I presented what are real facts which can be known and described via a FSK, of which the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable.

If you don't agree that scientific facts are real facts as I had claimed, then you define 'what are real facts' to you?

What is a scientific fact?

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

A "working definition of a fact" is off topic from the OP.

As such, here are:
what is a fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587


What is a scientific fact?

• A fact is a datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance, which, if accepted as true and proven true, allows a logical conclusion to be reached on a true–false evaluation. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

A scientific fact is conditioned upon the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
All facts are conditioned upon their specific FSK, i.e. political, historical facts cannot be scientific facts.

You have not answered my question:
If you don't agree that scientific facts are real facts as I had claimed, then you define 'what are real facts' to you?