Sorry for my ignorance, but did Maimonides have anything to rely on? Was there not an absolute scientific tradition?

I didn’t understand the question.

Is Maimonides’ view that one cannot determine scientific facts from the Torah his own opinion? According to the Mishnah, “nor the Account of Creation in the presence of two”—perhaps there are scientific descriptions here that must be studied carefully with a qualified rabbi, because he knows the scientific interpretation that was transmitted through tradition? Or perhaps the Mishnah does not “pretend” to offer a scientific interpretation, but only a divine one?
In other words: how do I know that Maimonides’ view did not arise from perplexity due to a mismatch between science and Torah, and that he therefore was “forced” to hold that from the Torah—even though it is true as a matter of faith / belief—one cannot derive scientific facts through it?!

That is not Maimonides’ view. He only writes that if there is a scientific or philosophical finding that contradicts what is written in the Torah, one should interpret it creatively so as to make it fit. It is I who inferred from this that accordingly there is almost no point in learning scientific or philosophical information from the Torah: if it is novel, you won’t accept it, and if you accepted it from the outset, then what did you learn from the Torah?
Obviously his words were said about situations of contradiction between what is written in the Torah and the findings of science or philosophy. What is the question about perplexity and so on?

First of all, thank you, Rabbi, for the answers and for the patience. You should know that my questions are genuine and are not meant to irritate, Heaven forbid; my goal really is to clarify things. As for the question—
According to Maimonides, must the adapted creative interpretation come from commentators on the Torah (who did not make things up from their own hearts, but followed the Sages, etc.)? Or can it also be a personal opinion when there is no suitable interpretation?
If the interpretations are from the Sages, etc., then although what is written in the Torah is not literal, there are commentators who explain the verses up to the “simple” and scientific understanding. And if there is no such suitable interpretation, then “there is perplexity” and one has to invent an interpretation?

Everything is fine.
Why only interpretations from Torah commentators? How did they themselves interpret? Did they look at earlier Torah commentators? So how were new interpretations created? Obviously everyone is supposed to interpret according to his own understanding, and of course one can make use of commentators.