Scientific fact

Scientific fact (Научный факт) is a published (allowed in free access) scientific concept, theory that has no competitors at least in some range of its applicability.

Scientific fact must be theory, id est, a hypothesis that survived some attempt(s) to refute it.

Scientific fact satisfies the TORI axioms and, in addition, it is main concept with respect to any other known concepts that are cover the same range of applicability.

The definition above is not that is usually assumed while Science is interbred as some kind of a "true knowledge". In order to show this, the piece from Wikipedia is copipasted in the First section below.

Wikipedia

The below is copipast from Wikipedia - for comparison to that of Preamble.
Some Wikipedia templates are not supported at TORI; they are suppressed below; so if any doubts, one should refer the original:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fact&oldid=1311046826#In_science

(Redirected from Scientific fact) (2025)

..

In mathematics

In mathematics, a fact is a statement (called a theorem) that can be proven by logical argument from certain axioms and definitions. (? - July 2021)

In science

See also Scientific method, Philosophy of science

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Philosophers and scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have written about numerous questions and theories that arise in the attempt to clarify the fundamental nature of scientific fact. Pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

• the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such; (p.182,fn. 1)
• whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another; (p.185) (p.138)
• to what extent "facts" are influenced by the mere act of observation;(p.138) and
• to what extent factual conclusions are influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.(p.7)

Consistent with the idea of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn points out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of other theories. For example, the age of fossils is based on radiometric dating, which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process. Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined, by the means and assumptions used to measure them.(Citation needed,July 2021)

The scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.(p.181 ff) Scientific facts are generally believed independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers agree on the outcome. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy among other interests in scientific study.

In history

A common rhetorical cliché states, "History is written by the winners". This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.Template:Citation needed

E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume What is History? argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean", of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different biases of fact finding – all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past – and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. The set of highlighted historical facts, and their interpretations, therefore changes over time, and reflect present consensuses.Template:Citation needed

In law

See also Evidence (law), Trier of fact

This section of the article emphasizes common law jurisprudence as primarily represented in Anglo-American–based legal tradition. Nevertheless, the principles described herein have analogous treatment in other legal systems such as civil law systems as well.

In most common law jurisdictions, the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of jurisprudence, and is supported by several well-established standards. Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.

These include:

an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a cause of action

the determinations of the finder of fact after evaluating admissible evidence produced in a trial or hearing;

a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an appellate court; and

any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.

Legal pleadings

see also Pleading

A party (e.g., plaintiff) to a civil suit generally must clearly state the relevant allegations of fact that form the basis of a claim. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies, depending on the rules of civil procedure and jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.

In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that when considered together may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This seemingly logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies such as res judicata that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts and ruling of the court.

Doubts

The definition in the preamble is different from that suggested by Wikipedia.

This form the specific of articles in TORI.

One of goals of loading of articles in TORI is to reveal possible defects of such an approach.

Rule of Newspeak

In TORI, the Rule of Newspeak is allowed as a tool to construct scientific concepts.

In this sense, some interpretations in TORI may cause protest of colleagues the do not accept the TORI axioms but consider Science as some kind of a true knowledge.

With the definition of Scientific fact above and the TORI axioms, the rules of the deduction for TORI are specified.

The testing of these rules, these tools is in process. The goal is to reveal the needs for the adjustment, if some adjustment make them more efficient.

Examples

Before the heliocentric system of Universe, the geocentric system by Ptolemy is scientific fact.

Before the experiments with nuclear reactions, the concept of conservation of number of atoms of each kind in a closed system is scientific fact.

While the artificial life is not created in a laboratory from non–living materials, Biogenesis is Scientific fact. This applies even to the most radical form of Biogenesis: The life at the Earth is created by God, and there is no other way to create life from non–lining objects.

Until creation (and reporting) of the Quantum mechanics and the Special theory of relativity, the Classical mechanics is scientific fact.

The system of axioms of Arithmetics is scientific fact. The hypothesis of existence of the big number, called the Mizugadro number, such that the Arithmetics axiom lead to a contradiction being applied to this number, is considered in article Mizugadro number(dream) .

However, the hypothesis of existence of the Mizugadro number is not a Scientific concept. It does not satisfy the Second TORI axiom, it is not refutable. We cannot prove the self-consistency of the system of axioms of Arithmetics.

The hypothesis of existence and uniqueness of tetration is scientific fact. Tetration \(\mathrm{tet}\) is holomorphic solution of equation \(\exp(\mathrm{tet}(z))=\mathrm{tet}(z\!+\!1)\), satisfying certain additional conditions (see Superfunctions) . After the publication and attempts to refute this hypothesis it is scientific fact. (Few years later, the mathematical proof of the existence and the uniqueness had been published.)

Causality is Scientific fact. Every event can be interpreted as a result of events that happen before it.

Concept that the Nevsky Express bombing in 2009 had been performed upon approval of Edro, is scientific fact, at least until another scientific concept is suggested to explain, how the Edros could submit the statements about the mass memorial meetings about that catastrophe before the catastrophe. In such a way, the causality principle indicates, that the crash of the Nevsly Express happened as result of the terroristic act.

Concept about corruption of the Putins election committees is scientific fact. These committees perform the election fraud; no other scientific concept is available to explain the appearance of the reports about the fraud .

Concept, that the KGB agents are involved in the organisation of the Katyn–2 catastrophe, is Sceintific fact. No other concept is available to describe the mutual contradictions in the official statements about that catastrophe published. The officials related to the catastrophe had been insisted on different numbers of the landing attempts precedent to the crash; and even the moment of crash indicated varies from one statement to another; the deviation of the estimates is of order of 15 minutes. Such an uncertainty could correspond to scientific level of century 16, before the construction of precise clocks, but not to century 21. According to publications, the research group handled by Putin did not interested at all the apparent contradictions; none of the administrators had been interrogated about these contradictions. The key questions about the catastrophe were not answered in the final report of the research group. The only way to explain this is sabotage of the research group and the airport personnel. No other scientific concept to explain their strange behaviour is available.

Concept Putin killed Nemtsov is scientific fact. No other scientific concept is available to describe the behaviour of criminalists, who investigated the case. The criminalists could not answer the key questions about the case; then just ignored the disappearance of videorecords of the crime made by the monitoring cameras placed at the Kremlin wall and at the posts of the Nemtsov bridge. Such a sabotage has no other explanation in the Russian official publications. This indicates, confirms, verifies, proves the involvement of Putin in that murder.

Involvement of KGB in the organisation of catastrophe of airplane A321, performed рейс7k9268 and crashed 2015.10.31 at the Sinai, is scientific fact. No other concept is available to describe absence of the videorecords of the crash by the monitoring cameras on board, that were supposed to transfer the images to the ground stations in real time. Nor the ignorance of that absence by the research group is explained by other concepts about that crash.

Irrefutable facts and terminology

In TORI terminology, no one scientific fact can be irrefutable.

In such a way, no one scientific fact is interpreted as a "true knowledge".

The historic examples mentioned above confirm that such an interpretation is the only way to avoid contractions and confusions.

The terminology suggested is under testing. The attempts to find its contradictions (if any) are performed.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

http://www.whatislife.com/education/fact/fact_home.html What is a Scientific Fact? Facts must not be believed for what they are, but for what they explain.

Keywords

«Hypothesis», «Science», «Scientific concept», «Scientific fact», «Theory», «TORI», «TORI axioms»,

«Аксиомы ТОРИ», «Гипотеза», «Наука», «Научная концепция», «Научный факт», «Теория», «Философия»,