Each link has been reviewed and found worthy by another 10 experts, because of a general consensus based on a sheet of paper by yet another expert.

Tautological reification- happens all the time. Detect it by looking for cycles in references.

Going back, what can we 'know' to be sure of? history, science, how to assess what's real independently?

Epistemology needs to be internally consistent and rationally coherent or else it is solipsistic (at best) or delusional. I also prefer to be grounded in repeatable personal observations. The theory can be built on too of this but if it's not at the core it gets silly quickly.

Each link has been reviewed and found worthy by another 10 experts, because of a general consensus based on a sheet of paper by yet another expert.

Tautological reification- happens all the time. Detect it by looking for cycles in references.

Going back, what can we 'know' to be sure of? history, science, how to assess what's real independently?

Epistemology needs to be internally consistent and rationally coherent or else it is solipsistic (at best) or delusional.