Scientific method tries to get as close as possible to facts.
The issue is that popular press and "influencers" ignore limitations in studies and always tell just their interpretations while pointing to "the science".
Tries to, but it too is flawed; misinterpretation of numbers, falsifying of numbers, publishing papers as a means to inflate one's own ego / CV, not publishing studies that don't look positive, and of course, companies and industries funding studies into the positive parts of their 'thing', see for example the campaign against 'fat' in the eighties (funded by the grain and sugar industries), being replaced with the campaign against sugar and carbs in the past two or so decades.
I'm sure all of those studies had merit, had adequate numbers, were peer reviewed and everything... but they were still made with an Agenda, and worse, picked up by the mainstream media so that they could push lifestyle advice, diets, and promote one category of products over another.
The "Truth" is in the middle, of course, and to make a completely opinion based and unscientific statement, too much of anything / overconsumption is a bad thing, but that's too vague a statement or advice; people like being told "avoid doing / eating this" and "do / eat that instead", sticking to simple rules as a lifestyle choice.
It's not even limitations. It's studies that are non-peer reviewed, or non-replicated (not failed to replicate sometimes, just hasn't yet been replicated).
Especially certain subjects where poor, biased, studies seem rife. They take a study and run with it because a scientific study is "science", even if a study is just one step one the way to an accepted truth.
Sometimes is more explicit, cherry-picking certain studies over others; possibly even dismissing those with the "bad" result as biased (or *-ist).
Not all science is equal, either. A paper published in an evolutionary psychology journal is not as valid as the theory of evolution itself. Yet, we tend to lump everything in under "Science".
Aside from interpretation, a major issue is the press and "influencers" selecting to promote studies that affirm their preconceived notions, and simply ignoring other studies that contradict them.
He is exactly right. The universe as it is and how we humans perceive it are two different worlds. Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up and have no equivalent in the physical universe, but we still use them because it fulfills some purpose for us.
> Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up
What have you been smoking? All words are made up. But that isn't related to the question fact vs interpretation at all. The word "Earth" is made up, your name is made up, "human" is made up, the air that you breathe is made up, yet you are (most likely) a human on Earth, and you'd hate it if that air suddenly disappeared.
Anyway, the quote contradicts itself/reduces itself to ravings of a lunatic, so isn't worth taking seriously.
"Earth", "Air" and "Human" are not abstract nouns because they have physical things we can match those words to.
Contrast that to abstract nouns like "truth", "danger" or "happiness", which are actually interpretations of something other. Statements using these tend to be opinions or non-verifiable. Fact-Checking doesn't work for them.
I was more arguing his post. In hindsight, i think he interpreted the "have no physical equivalent" part differently. I meant it more like, that what the words are referring to, the concepts behind it. Not the words itself.
I'm still saying Nietzsche is right with the quote. That he is right does not forbid to mentally work with the concept of objectivity. See it more of an invitation to question the objectivity of everything.
The issue is that popular press and "influencers" ignore limitations in studies and always tell just their interpretations while pointing to "the science".