What is a "scientific fact"?

Question

Please tell me how you think the idea of a "scientific fact" fits into the scientific method and the nature of how science work and role of evidence.

Answer 1

By definition, a fact is something that can be proven or disproven.  For example, the following statements are facts because they can be proven or disproven:

  - I am male.  (a true fact)

  - I own a car.  (a true fact)

  - I am 20 feet tall.  (a false fact)

  - My skin is purple.  (a false fact)

The contrast to fact is opinion (things that cannot be proven or disproven).  For example, the following are opinions:

  - Nature is relaxing.

  - It smells in here.

A scientific fact is simply a fact that can be proven or disproven using the scientific method.

Answer 2

FACT: you will die if your heart stops.

thru trial and error we have learned many things since the dawn of time and thus we can pass that information along as FACT cause the situation never changes and allows us to not repeat the same misteaks or operations as had been done earlier and will allow us to add to the existing knowledge :)

Answer 3

Scientific fact is one that is well experimented, observed, experienced phenomenon. A scientific fact remains true for all observers. It does not change for you or me.

A scientifc fact is based on logic, evidence, mathematic model. It has strong base on observable entities.

Scientific method comprises of the observer and the observed. The observer observes and draws logically conherent statements from what has been observed. The logical statements form a chain whose root is the evidence. Scientifc menthod's ultimate result is a scientifc fact. So, if evidence and scientifc fact are two points, then scientifc method is the line connecting the two.

Answer 4

An experimental result repeated so often that it would be perverse to deny it.

Answer 5

A scientific fact is a plain observation. It does not have any interpretation around it, but might be influenced by believes. That's why for science it is not only important to note what you observe, but also how you observe it.

The scientific method and the various interpretations of how scientific work should look like, is best explained in the Wikipedia article. Basically it can be summarized as:

Gather data

Find behaviors inside the data (hypothesis)

validate the hypothesis

Explain the hypothesis by a theory

validate the theory.

Answer 6

What has not been refuted can be considered a scientific fact.

Answer 7

I have a relative who's heart stopped and did not die.

Scientists usually do not use the term "scientific fact".

However, it generally means a verifiable observation which results from repeated experimentation.

Answer 8

scientific fact is as close as you can really get to 'fact'(if you actually study the world, you'll find there are alot fewer 'facts' then people just assume are actually there.)

Answer 9

A scientific fact is a theory that holds not only for all known conditions, but also for all contemplated or projected conditions.

All scientific conclusions are, in Karl Popper's words, "forever tentative."  That is, there is no presumption that scientists will never come across new conditions that cause us to re-evaluate conclusions.

Evidence is the observation of the conditions that affect or follow from a hypothesis.  Scientists must first imagine the conditions that ought to do that.  Knowledge of the physical world informs that imagination.

The scientific method is the body of techniques of observation and inference used to detect whether the postulated conditions are in fact connected to the hypothesis, usually through a systematic process of trial and prediction.

The hypothesis becomes a theory when the scientific method demonstrates that it predicts an observable outcome under the tested conditions.  We call it a theory instead of a fact because we know our model doesn't necessarily capture all conceivable conditions and circumstances.

We call it a fact when the model is so apparently complete and correct that the chances of circumstances arising to dispute it is exceptionally low.  It is still really a theory, but not one that can be rationally denied.

Answer 10

You hear that Evolution or The Big Bang is "just a theory" all the time.  But scientists say that a scientific theory is something else.  What is a scientific theory?

An hypothesis, even a scientific hypothesis, is a guess. They are supported by some evidence. Careful observations are scientific facts.  You saw it, you measured it.  It's not going to be much different tomorrow.  It's a fact.  But as we'll see, most scientific hypothesese turn out to be wrong.

A scientific theory is different. It starts out as a scientific hypothesis, a guess really, but as more and more evidence becomes available, it gets built into a more sophisticated body of knowlege, and the conclusions are so solid that it can be considered as fact. But that isn't a "scientific fact" - that's still called a theory.

It's easier to describe by using an example.  We won't use Evolution or The Big Bang, because you've heard it before. You actually start with a scientific fact - which is just an observation.  The sky is blue.  The length of a meter is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which  is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second.  But you need a scientific fact - measuring the speed of light, to determine the length of a meter.  But on to the example.

Suppose that you go outside and happen to notice that the horizon is pretty straight. That's a scientific fact. You think "That's just what it would look like if the world was flat."  It's a guess, but there's some evidence that it's correct.  And that's how scientists form an hypothesis, which is a guess. So, you go home, and you tell your parents of your discovery.  They say, "You didn't have to look.  Everyone knows the world is flat."  And you gain confidence in your hypothesis, having checked with the experts.  But a couple months later, you've climbed a mountain, and from the top, the horizon doesn't look quite so straight anymore.  But looking carefully, you notice some small color anomalies, and you think, "Oh, yeah.  The atmosphere is acting like a lens - and this is just chromatic aberration. Another scientific fact. Oh, and we know that a lens can distort things, and besides, we already know the horizon is straight."  Your faith in your hypothesis is strengthened, mostly by the big words you used.  Laugh if you want, but this is how science is done.

A few months go by, and you hook up with a boy in India in an internet chat.  At one point he mentions that it's really late at night, and has to go.  But for you it's day time. You trust him, but you imagine that he's on the other side of the world.  The world is flat, and one side is night. Well, things develop, and you book a flight to India to meet this guy in person.  On the way, you carefully watch out the window for the edge of the world, but you never see it. Your faith in this flat Earth model is shaken, not stirred. (This is an action/adventure detective story, uncovering secrets.)

You've been back home for months, and you see a total eclipse of the Moon.  These events are quite common, and you've seen three of them before.  You see the round shadow of the Earth cross the face of the Moon. It was round each time you saw it. You conclude that the Earth must be a sphere to always cast a round shadow on the Moon.  You tell your parents this, but they spank you.  You decide to elope with that nice boy in India.  But by the time you get there, his parents have married him off.  And that's when you start to develop your first truly scientific theory of the world.  The world isn't flat after all.  The world is really messed up.

Feel free to use this story, or one like it in class, without bothering with attribution or anything.  It's public domain.