everything you know is "map"
therefore, you cannot know "objective facts"
True, I can never have 100% confidence in any belief, but I can be 99.9999% sure, which is good enough for me.
facts must be verifiable, quantifiable, empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary
a "really real human socrates with dna" is none of these
It is a fact that Socrates existed in that I am >99% confident that he existed, as per the historical consensus. I am likewise 99.9999% sure that all humans that exist or have existed possess a DNA sequence. The resulting syllogism is that Socrates had a DNA sequence.
OPINION must be unfalsifiable, personal, experiential, GNOSTIC, qualitative (and emotionally meaningful) (aka NOT fact) QUALIA
I have never seen someone insinuate that the past is all qualia before. I am not positing a specific DNA sequence that belonged to Socrates, only stating that the most logical (99.9999% certainty!) conclusion is that he had one. As for the other qualifiers you give here, you draw a false dichotomy.
Under fact, you posit the quality of "verifiable", while under opinion, you say "unfalsifiable." These are not mutually exclusive, nor do they cover all possible outcomes.
Verifiable and falsifiable are not the same. Verify is to confirm to be true, falsify is to confirm to be false. One can still put a hypothesis or belief in the middle ground, as of yet neither verified or falsified.
Outside of the venn diagram: I claim that there is a 100% undetectable dragon in my garage. It is invisible, inaudible, it doesn't breath or produce heat, if you splash paint or flour into the air it will drop through the dragon as if it were air. All of these caveats make it impossible to apply empirical evidence to the claim. I cannot prove that there isn't a dragon, only point out how unlikely it is to exist. Similarly, no matter how much one wants to believe a dragon is there, there is no way to prove that there is a dragon.
Verifiable but not falsifiable: The one that comes immediately to mind is the question of God. If God were to reveal himself directly to the world and start performing miracles to prove he is God, that would be pretty good evidence, though I suppose some people would insist on hallucinations or simulation theory. Theoretically God could just snap his fingers and give you perfect knowledge of everything, and then you would know 100%. However, even if we prove the Big Bang and evolution, etc., people can always claim that God exists, operating quietly in the background. You can never really prove that he doesn't exist, only assign low probabilities to it.
Verifiable and falsifiable: There is a regulation size football in my closet. This one has clear metrics. I can look in the finite space of my closet and see almost immediately if this is true or false. I specified regulation size to preclude the possibility of, say a microscopic football. I might even see a football and be required to go the extra step of measuring it against regulation parameters. If I don't see one after looking through my entire closet, then the claim has been falsified. If I do see one and it matches all of the regulations, then the claim has been verified.
Falsifiable but not verifiable: All crows are black. I can spend my entire life looking at crows and observing their color. If I see a single crow of a different color, the claim has been falsified. However, it is physically impossible for me to observe all crows that have ever existed, especially without time travel, so even if I have billions of data points in favor of black, I can never verify the claim, only place a high probability in favor based on empirical evidence.
