For a phenomenon to be seen as “real” it must be measurable and to some level of precision amongst all those doing the measurements. It must be reproducible in different parts of the globe.
For example, I could use a laser to probe the difference in energy between the ground electronic state zero-point level and the electronic excited state zero-point level in a molecule like para-cyanophenol in a molecular beam apparatus. I could determine the value of this energy to one part in 30,000, or better. I might make this measurement in a basement lab in Bern. Someone at the University of Kyoto might make the same measurement and find a value which is one part in 30,000 different from mine. We could agree that the difference is down to some small error in calibration and concur that the value was ~ X. Because two people on different sides of the globe measured the same phenomenon, we could conclude it exists and is therefore real.
By definition controversy has no reproducibility. Think about this, if you must.
People disagree as to the value. It is not measurable and is therefore solely a construct of the human mind, its opinion and prejudices. Controversy is made up and ergo, fictional.
If you disagree with this statement, please explain to me how you can measure controversy and exactly how globally transferable your measure of controversy is. To what accuracy and precision can you determine controversy?
Controversy is made up shit, it does not exist, you cannot measure it with a laser.
Is this a controversial statement?