Don’t scientists gather ”facts’ and represent the ”facts’ of their studies in addition to their conclusions, if any?
Yes, they do. But the technical term for these is "observations" and not "facts".
If a scientist conducts a test and writes down that when the test started there were 1mil bacterium per millimeter and when the test was concluded there were on average 10mil bacterium per millimeter, is that really not referred to as ”facts’ within science?
It is usually referred to as "observations."
If that is the case, then logically, the common definition of fact would actually apply to science.
But there is no common definition of "fact".
Sure, we can look at a dictionary. But dictionaries don't really define words, even though we sometimes use the expression "dictionary definition." The meanings of words are determined by how people use them. Those who compile dictionaries study how words are used, and try to capture that as well as they can in their dictionaries. This is usually stated as "dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive."
Still even odder to me is the assertion that fact somehow means 100% certainty.
That does not seem odd to me. People tend to use "belief" when they have some uncertainty, and "fact" when they are certain. Of course, what one person thinks is certain might what another thinks as contentious, so there will often be disagreement here.
Precision of language works both ways.
If you want precision of language, then stick to mathematics and express everything in FOPC (first order predicate calculus). Formal languages are quite precise, but they have the disadvantage that you can't say very much. Natural languages are never completely precise, but they are highly expressive.
Let's end the political smears
™ Version 4.2