[Southack]

"Theory" in science is as close to fact as one could possibly get."

No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.

[Alacarte]

No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.

Oh! So you just don't agree with the established definition of a theory in science. Despite the fact that the scientific community itself has absolutely no problem with it... If you can't beat them, just change the rules!

[Junior]

Observations do not equate to facts. You could observe the same phenomenon a thousand times, but there is always the possibility the next time will turn out different.

[e p1uribus unum]

re: Observing "facts" in the wild
(true story)

There is a bird called and Indigo Bunting.

Any book you ever see about birds shows it as blue.

One day a newby birdwatcher came to ask about a black Indigo Bunting sized bird he had just seen.

Nearby scientist asked a few questions, then explained. The black colored bird was an Indigo Bunting.

The apparent "fact" that the bird was black was simply a data point better described as a bird that _apppeared_ black at this time of day and in this location in relation the observer and the sun.

So is the apparent "fact" that the Indigo Bunting is blue.

Scientists don't do "facts", we do "data"

Explanation of bird is left as an exercise for the student. ;->