you seem to be making a point about linguistics.
Of course I am, but our conception of the world is constructed by language. You cannot separate one from the other.
how we choose to organise those facts is another subject.
No it is not, for the reasons I have given above. How we organise facts is the way that we socially construct knowledge. It is not even simply that we should call an apple an apple and not another word, but that the conceptual unit that we label an apple should be called into existence as a discreet concept in the first place. At first it seems obvious that it should, but on further reflection this is not at all clear. And why are a red apple and a green apple both apples? Why are red peaches not apples? Why is an apple on a tree called an apple the same as an apple in the bowl? Why do we have a word for an apple but not a word for an apple and a branch together? These are utterly arbitrary and socially contingent distinctions. How we use language does not merely describe the world as it is, it constructs the world during the process of description. Language is not a clear mirror into the world. So long as science must use language to communicate its ideas it is also defined by its slipperlyness.
bohm did you know that even our conception of numbers may be socially constructed? There is apparently a tribe in the Amazon for whom numbers larger than two simply do not exist as distinct concepts. Google - Amazon tribe without numbers.