Now your just talking rubbish
I'm not the one calling Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawking fools.
NOTE: The contraction you are attempting to form is spelled 'you're.' It is short for 'you are'; the apostrophe indicates that the words have been run together and one or more letters have been elided from the combination. What you wrote is 'your,' which is the possessive form of the second-person formal singular pronoun 'you.' What you wrote means, "now of you talking rubbish," which makes no sense. Before you accuse others of speaking counter-factually, you might take the time to learn the language you are attempting to use.
The point i am making is that astronomy does not guarantee what is detected is a black hole... only that 'something' is there having certain detectable effects which 'seem' to indicate a black hole based on our best but limited understanding.
This is generally true of ALL situations. I cannot be sure that the person I see across the road is not an illusion. My vision detects certain visual phenomena that 'seem' to indicate that a person is there. If I approach and reach out, my hand will detect physical phenomena that 'seem' to indicate that the person is there as well. But I can NEVER truly 'know' that the person is there, all I have is my senses and their interpretation. The same is true of black holes: no matter how close we get, we can never truly KNOW they are there. All we can do is detect them, and we can do that just as easily from here. You cannot hide from ambiguity of an uncertain universe; we can never know if any of us is what we think we are. Ditto chickens, video games, internet trolls. Heck, how do I know YOU are a person? You could be an alien, or a computer program, or a sapient slime mold living three kilometers below me...
However, we cannot use this ambiguity as an excuse to eschew reason. we CAN be reasonably certain of some things. That is what science is. You are so quick to discard black holes, but you wouldn't question gravity, would you? Certainly not while standing under an anvil! Science has brought us a great distance, and there is no reason to assume it can't take us to the very limits of understanding. However, science is not an a la carte affair, you cannot accept the parts you like, and reject the parts you don't because science 'isn't perfect.' If you want to throw out science, you have to throw out the bathwater, such as computers, antibiotics, and weather forcasting.
This is Philosophy 101. If you want to challenge science, go read up on both science and philosophy. And then put your thoughts on an appropriate thread, not here.
science and science fiction are very much intertwined and take inspiration from each other both ways....
If you will re-read my post, that is exactly my point. This discussion is about the science in science fiction. One thing we don't usually do in sci fi is pretend we will know less in the future than we know today (there are notable exceptions, of course). The situation you propose, in which some magical, unknown force or forces is misleading us completely with regard to the nature of the universe, is not scientific. We have no evidence of any such force. We have no reason to anticipate that the structure of reason will break down in the future, and that is what it would take to obviate all of our present scientific accomplishments. If fiction trumps science, you have fantasy, not science fiction. This is a sci-fi game, not a fantasy game.