All of those things are flawed, however. They contradict themselves at times, to say nothing of grabbing holding of Truth. Because I "appeal" to something doesn't mean what I am appealing to has substance.
These concepts we have of "truth" and "facts" are in my view only colloquial expressions. At their height they express a generalized feeling about what is true and what is factual, or in the case of science, what can be shown through testing and experiment. That does not mean these things are Truth or Facts. Even now in quantum mechanics they are showing that the foundational laws of the universe do not always apply at the subatomic level. How can there be "knowledge" when even the basic understandings we have about the physical universe can and does change over time?
Can you prove Descartes existed?What? How could someone who doesn’t exist be “wrong”? Your statement above refutes itself because Descartes would have to exist in order to be wrong, and if he existed then he was not wrong at all. It’s the very definition of logical certainty.