>>10199671well i guess this is sort of arguing semantics at this point, but to clarify: yes, there are many things which aren't empirical facts. take for instance "augustus caesar was the emperor of ancient rome". fine, we can't do a test to reproduce that or look through a telescope to see it, so it's not empirical. it's a historical fact. but it's totally consistent with scientific observations, and tidbits of "indirect evidence" exist in a scientific way (like looking at archaeology and ancient artifacts)
what i mean by "only scientific facts are true facts" is that if you claim there are any facts that are inconsistent with science, or postulate the existence of things which aren't observable empirically (in principle, forever), then it's not a fact. statements that disagree with established empirical facts (like walking on water) are just false, and statements that only deal with permanently unobservable things are nonscientific and have no meaning
