I... get where you're coming from here, but I'm not sure I'm going to agree. Sure, yes, to some extent you can go all the way to Descartes and believe nothing b

I... get where you're coming from here, but I'm not sure I'm going to agree. Sure, yes, to some extent you can go all the way to Descartes and believe nothing but your own existence. But back to those works in C minor - there's a lot of evidence of them. Recordings. Sheet music. Orchestras who claim to have performed them, and so on. Now sure, you can say that all of those things are also assertions and not facts but at some point the onus flips, and it's going to be on you to provide some reason for why those things should be disregarded. If you're not going to operate on a basis of "reasonable doubt until falsified by a better theory" then you're where? In an entirely post-fact state, where sure, everything's an opinion. And sure, if you want to be there, nobody has a right to stop you but it's not a very productive state. Yes, journalists tend to be pretty careful with claims around things where there is reasonable doubt. But there is a reason journalists are not still writing about Mozart and using careful phrasing like "and it is also believed by some sources that other composers may have composed comparable works in the same key". For humanity to work we have to go with "fact until shown not to be" otherwise we wouldn't make it through a day.