Factual information has been surrounding people since the dawn of time, and humans have always shown curiosity about the world around them. A plethora of scientific discoveries have been made by virtue of great intellectuals, such as Aristotle, Nicolaus Copernicus, Marie Curie, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, to name but a few. Darwin, for instance, meticulously gathered data to support his studies, while Einstein theorized with little material evidence to support his suggestions other than just by observation, including the application of previous knowledge, logic, and mathematical formulas. As it could be argued, the discoveries they both made are of similar significance, it is intriguing to know what the interrelationship between evidence and assumption is. The research process in the spheres of medicine and astronomy can vividly illustrate these interconnections, and sometimes contradictions, between facts and theory.
Facts can provide confirmation of a theory’s viability provided they have a strongly established correlation with the thesis, methodology, method of analysis, and conclusions of a study. On the other hand, raw data needs to be thoroughly examined and explained before it can be used to back assumptions. Such logic poses a question of what should come first and what should follow. Indeed, sound research should always be based on facts. Therefore, to provide such theoretical research with the studied facts, an explorative type of study is required. However, nothing prevents researchers from theorizing on the fields that currently are still lacking solid evidence. The driving force behind such research is often the wish to outline known and hidden variables, and create a structure for further studies.
New theorizing is especially prevalent in astronomy where theories often precede facts as human methods and technologies of studying space are limited, but ever-evolving to allow discoveries. Einstein’s relativity theory was born way ahead of its time. It was based on the notion that the speed of light is a constant figure, even though no hard evidence was provided except for the mathematical explanation. It was only in 1983 that the speed of light in a vacuum was measured, confirming Einstein’s suggestions. Until then, many physicists believed it to be true only due to the strong logic behind the theory and the authority the researcher had in the scientific community.
This outlines the problem of bias and doubt that can play a crucial role in the acceptance, or even just the consideration, of facts and theories. Assumptions that are based on a limited body of facts create an unstable structure that is often closely examined and questioned, creating the need for additional research that modifies or adds ideas that can then be either misleading or highly beneficial, for the theoretical basis of a particular area of knowledge.
On the one hand, this process can deepen the knowledge of a particular subject by putting it under the scrutiny of numerous scientists, which can certainly be seen as advantageous and serve as an interest-building factor. This focus could reveal problems in a particular area that needs to be addressed, which is another positive benefit. Establishing a new theoretical basis, though unsupported, but logical or innovational, seems to push scientific society, and the world, further. The history of increasing astronomical knowledge allows us to notice that such theories can lead to great inventions that lay the foundations for science uncovering a plethora of new facts, as well as opening up a vast field of further research. For example, an ambitious heliocentric theory produced by Copernicus eventually lead to the creation of the telescope, thus revolutionizing the methods of observing and monitoring space activities. This illustrates the crucial importance of theory as a driving force of discovery.
On the other hand, overzealous preoccupation with theory can direct attention away from urgent problems in an area, replacing actual productive research with a mere competition of ‘building cloud castles. It can lead to the division of scientists and provoke quarrels. There can, it must be said, also be a positive side to this in the form of healthy competition when scientists analyze current and emerging data, measuring its application to the competing theories in an aspiration to collect reliable evidence. However, individual scientists can also have their interests, which ensure that an area develops, if not evenly, then almost certainly in multiple directions. Therefore, the processes of factual investigation and theory building can be simultaneous while not always connected and supportive.
A significant problem with facts is that they can sometimes be difficult to uncover. Modern scientists speculate on what there was before the Big Bang as it is now the major theory of universe creation that has not been properly proved or disproved. It is possible that with the arrival of new facts there will come a time to rethink this model, revolutionize our perception of space and establish new theories. Even though there is no limitation to the number of theories explaining the processes in our universe, factual evidence is what makes them viable, but this is often out of reach. In astronomy, obtaining viable proof for a thesis is often a challenging task that can take decades of continuous research. Currently, there are many cosmological theories that wait for their facts, such as eternal inflation, string theory, event horizon, amongst others.
This ‘wait’ highlights another sizable problem concerning facts. Technological advancements in the tools for data collection and analysis need to be made before these theories can find proofs or be disproved: it took years to build a hadron collider to uncover the Higgs particle, which was then analyzed and used to strengthen the evidence for quantum field theory that had been elaborated on much earlier. This leads to the conclusion that uncovering new facts can be a time and fund-dependent task while theories can be established with the sheer power of the mind. Nonetheless, as the examples studied above suggest, the human brain can often create intricate correct hypotheses that anticipate discoveries made dozens or even hundreds of years after.
A reverse process, however, is often the case in modern medicine. Since the structure of the human genome was decoded, a wave of facts in the form of myriads of various genes was discovered. Although many of their inner mechanics were uncovered, their relation to particular processes in the human body still remains to be explained. This outlines an opposite problem when there is an abundance of data, which needs solid theories and some kind of analytical structure.
There is a certain problem with compiling such vast amounts of factual evidence in one or several models, explaining particular mechanics of the human organism: it is in the close correlation of uncovered genes, which need to be examined further. The most plausible explanation for this task having not been completed appears rather paradoxical. Despite the seeming profusion of data, there still may simply not be enough yet. Facts, in this case, can be viewed as an intricate mosaic. However, instead of a figure or a landscape that can be recognized without every piece in place, it represents a sequence of words in a sentence that does not have a meaning until every piece, or the right amount of them, are collected and precisely placed. Therefore, a conclusion can be made that sometimes a critical amount of facts need to be discovered to establish or support a theory.
Even if the sentence, compiled from the data, explained a theory, it still does not necessarily mean that this sentence is true or complete. The meaning of the sentence is often defined within the context. Thus, for example, the observation and accumulation of treatment methods and different effects that herbs, pills, and ointments have on health created an evidence base that has been continuously reworked and updated. Hence, extensive evidence and small theories that explain how each piece is applied can lead scientists to realize a bigger picture, building a more general theory that connects minor ones into a logical network.
All things considered, the interdependence of facts and theories is evident. This link, however, is not always present and not always binary. Both theories and facts can be temporarily presented separately, but it is only a matter of time before the unrelenting desire of the human race to systematize and explain everything arranges it into a sequence. However, hindrances such as bias, doubt, and technological progress seem to inhibit this process. The correlation of fact and theory illustrated by astronomy and medicine revealed the two fundamental approaches to discovering scientific knowledge: deductive and inductive. The former consists of the meticulous assembly of facts until they do not strike a scientist with a theory explaining their correlation. The latter approach entails the devising of a theory and looking for evidence with which to support it. Either way can be beneficial for science and pushes humankind to explain existing secrets of the world and uncover new ones to feed our curiosity.