Truth, a Tripartite Problem
I will argue this perspective. Take from it what you will. I think you have a three-fold problem. The first is metaphysical, that is, what is reality? Is reality atoms and molecules, ideas or feelings, the concrete and the abstract, or all of these? How do you reconcile the more material world of matter and the nonmaterial world of perceptions of matter? Can these two even be reconciled with? The second issue is epistemological, that is, what do you know, what can you know, and how do you know you can know? Arguably, there is an infinistemal array of facts regarding both the material world and the immaterial world. That is, there is a large array of matter and there is a large array of immaterial objects such as thoughts or feelings. If you wanted to construct a framework of reality which factually describes reality, it would require knowledge of these infinite sets. Can one ever acquire that kind of knowledge? What if you decide to accept only approximations of these sets? Your framework arguably will suffer and become of lower resolution. It will be able to account for general phenomenon but not specific actions. Your framework, arguably would be flawless if it could process all the facts, and flawed otherwise. The third trouble is moral, that is, what is the good? How do you know the good? Can you know it? In your framework of reality, do you equalize all facts as being of equal weight or do you set some above the rest? This would skew your framework. Some facts are accounted for by your framework while others fall by the wayside all because you chose some facts or a range of facts to take priority over others.
So, to the question, do facts matter, I argue, it is a matter of perspective. Is there one perspective or an infinite number of them? Are all of them valid? Are some of them valid? Are none of them valid? How would you even know this? How would anyone know this?
I wish I knew.