When do we have a scientific fact?
This article reminder me of this classic from 1994 by Steven Jay Gould, &quot;Evolution as a fact and theory&quot;. [1]<p>I adore SJG but this is one essay where I disagreed. Actually started the first day of a research design course in a pretty heated debate with the dead wood professor where this essay was the topic of discussion, he couldn&#x27;t wrap his head around taking epistemological or practical issue with the label of scientific fact and accused me of being a creationist. But I digress:<p>I don&#x27;t see what use the word fact is except in a contextual sense. We have scientific observations, which are pretty close to facts, but they can still change when we later discover measurement error or similar. Everything beyond those observations is a matter of inference and I can&#x27;t see how calling them a fact is useful beyond a term of convenience in the context of a dialogue where all parties are informed on the subject and can agree on something akin to the Gould definition:<p>&gt; In science, &quot;fact&quot; can only mean &quot;confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.&quot;<p>Because you won&#x27;t be convincing the unconvinced by calling something a fact, especially not in the post-truth era, so it&#x27;s not going to turn creationists and will have limited use for public health messaging or similar.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wise.fau.edu&#x2F;~tunick&#x2F;courses&#x2F;knowing&#x2F;gould_fact-and-theory.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wise.fau.edu&#x2F;~tunick&#x2F;courses&#x2F;knowing&#x2F;gould_fact-and-...</a>