Can you think of a scientific fact for which that statement would be clearly false?
It's meaningless, it's an ad hoc definition that is subjective.
The way what's his name stated it it is synonymous with "widely accepted". Fine, if it is to be used as jargon like that, but to use it outside of the context of discussion within a field is to be dishonest. This author did at least attempt to provide the ad hoc definition.
It's rather a depends on what the meaning of is is.