Which is the root of the problem. Is the Germ Theory of Disease a theory or a fact? According the definitions I was using, I would say it is both. According to you, though, I'd assume you would call it simply a fact.
No, both. I meant to say that with this rhetorical question (that I left the ? of the end of.)
If the explanation is very, very, very sure to be correct does that make it a fact in one way and, because it is an explanation rather than an observation, a theory at the same time.
Just to clarify, do you think an observation is science? And do you think theory and fact are on the same continuum of certainty?
Mmmmmm haven't thought about this before. No, if I take science to be a process.
However, are all observations equal? Are some "scientific" in some way and others not so much?
It may be that we can classify observations too. Some are "intersubjective" and might be a better class of observation than others.