Is There Any Such Thing as a "Fact" Anymore?

This has been bothering me for awhile.

Maybe it's just me getting older but it seems like things - at least some things - used to be a little better defined and the cause of less dispute. We used to call those things "facts". I'm not sure if they exist anymore.

Food industry activists argue that "sustainable farming" is a matter of opinion - what one person calls "sustainable" may not qualify as such to another person. This falls under the "puppy mill" category - that is, no real definition of the term and therefore a target for argument from all sides.

What about subjects that are written out, at length, for all to read such as the various health care reform bills? There should be some "facts" there and yet, we seem to hear differing interpretations. Even when those interpretations have been soundly and widely debunked (e.g. the "death panel" claim), they live on as "facts" to many who oppose health care reform.

As someone who enjoys following court cases, I used to think something like DNA evidence was generally accepted as "fact". Now though, it seems like all one side has to do to refute DNA evidence is get an expert to testify using terms such as "junk science". I actually saw an attorney argue recently that because the lab worker who conducted the DNA testing in the case made a typo in her report, she could have made other errors - implying that perhaps the DNA test results were incorrect. While I might dismiss this argument out of hand, I can easily picture a juror mulling the words "reasonable doubt" over in his head.

As I said, maybe I'm just getting nostalgic for the non-existent good ol' days but there is something very appealing to at least half my brain about the phrase "Just the facts, ma'am".