[Stultis]

>>> Scientists use the word "observation" rather than "fact."

You're kidding. An observation can be so subjective.

Exactly. The objective element is the real universe itself. Reality is always the final arbiter. Therefor even a scientific fact, which might be defined as a well confirmed observation (i.e. careful and qualified observers agree about it), is subject to revision. The observations we make can be in error, or we can fail to account for artifacts steming from the instrumentations and techniques that mediate them. Testing observations (and theories) against an objective reality provides a means of finding out errors and improving knoweldge.

[Steel Eye]

>>>Testing observations (and theories) against an objective reality provides a means of finding out errors and improving knoweldge.

So... by dealing with subjective "observations", as opposed to more concrete "facts", we are actually being more objective? I like that.

But limiting our definition of reality to only what we can observe, measure, and quantify, could in effect cause us to overlook, or even to scoff at the idea of, whole other dimensions. Could it not?