Is it right to contest truths and plain facts?
Definitely, not. But someone who denies them does not bear upon him the guilty of contradicting the reality, since the reality cannot accuse anybody for errors committed against it.
There are always human defenders of truths and plain facts and they perform the role of accusing. In doing this, they rarely separate their voice from the reality itself. For instance, in the case of a truth like ‘We live into the world’, nobody would defend it by using the tedious formulas ‘I think that we live...’, ‘I agree with...’ etc.
The truth and its supporter appear as one and the same.
And this is a fault that belongs not only to those who defend truths, but also to the truths themselves, since they always appear through their defenders (the plain facts are made ‘plain’ by someone, too).
In this case, when someone refutes truths and plain facts, we should wonder if there is not contested together with them the human practice of speaking in the name of reality. And it is always a doubtful practice, since we know that reality in fact defies our claim of being its voice whenever it overcomes us (through various unexpected life events and finally through death).
Nonetheless, those who confidently speak in the name of some falsities use the same doubtful practice.