Even the concept of 'warped' space itself indicates that the intuitive, euclidean concept is correct, the light does in fact not travel in a straight line, it follows a 'warped' line.

The difference between the two is that the 'warped' space is what we observe (because observing is an electromagnetic process, subject to gravity), 'real' space is something we can only infer (or observe in photos like in the linked article)

I don't think that's quite right. You can theoretically detect the local curvature of space by measuring the angles made by a sufficiently exact triangle. If space is flat, such a triangle will have interior angles that sum to a half turn. If it's curved, it will deviate from that. And that's something you can do more or less entirely locally and is a property of the space you're inhabiting.

We can know the Earth is round without any reference to Euclidean space or Euclidean coordinates- just trace out a big triangle and you could observe that the interior angles will sum to more than 180 degrees.

With all due respect, you don't seem to understand what I am saying: I completely agree that such measurements will show that space is curved, it's not like we disagree there. These measurements are however appearances, with the twist that such measurements provide the only viable map of locations.

The real space is useless for most intents and purposes (since our interactions are bounded by the properties of light and gravity, and thus appearances is what guides us).

It seems important to make the conceptual distinction however, and not confuse reality with appearances, in this case as well as every other.

Right on! Gods bless the humble triangle, bane of charlatans. (it's been a long night of polishing the thesis and now... scotch... I'll see myself out.)

No, it proves that the path of the visible photons we're detecting have been altered by forces of attraction.