We also maybe have to deal with the common misconception that a fact proceeds somehow from an absolute objective perspective. But as far as humans are concerned, there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests. Some human points of views might try to encompass more than the direct individual own experience might otherwise limit to, sure, but that is still human endeavor.

Fact and factitious have a common Latin root for a reason.

Even the carefully engineered autonomous probe will only gather data according to some human conceptions of what matter to be recorded or dismissed, what should be considered signal rather than noise.

> there are only human points of views grounded in human cognition and human interests.

“Only”? No.

The entire point of having a scientific approach, an ever longer list of ways to weed out mistakes and misperceptions, is that raw human cognition can be improved upon.

Repeatable results, independently reproduced results, peer review, control elements, effect isolation, … the list is actually very long.

Not every one of the methods we have collected applies to every step in knowledge, but every step we take can be validated by as many of them as apply.

And new ways of falsifying false conclusions continue to accumulate.