And? So what? We are talking about things of consequences.

I disagreed with your statement that "no one could ever get all the data and present accurate facts" and sought to use a ubiquitously understood example that is somehow divisive (see: flat-earthers) despite science that's been well understood for hundreds of years making it obviously factual.

I’d say if you’re arguing over basic objective, a priori truths, you’ve already lost the plot.

I disagree. I would argue it is "of consequence" if someone is unable to look at the available data and come to the conclusion that the planet we're standing on is round. Especially if that person is in a position of power or influence over others, because their capacity to make rational conclusions from available information is profoundly corrupted. e.g.: They shouldn't be a science teacher at a school because they don't understand even basic scientific principles that are universally understood.

Claiming I can’t ever prove to you that this case in front of me is green because what even is green is just… dumb.

Good thing I didn't say that, then!

I'm not fine with 90%, but 90% is significantly more reassuring and evidence-based than 0%. And if measuring that last 10% would mean some type of logistical nightmare, then we can act with relative assurance on a 90% likelihood. If you didn't know, that's how every fucking scientific test works. P-value of 0.1.