:::Okay, first off the only off hand reference for my claims is Biology 6th Edition by Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece (the most popular college textbook for biology 101), chapter 1, the section on theories in science under the heading The Process of Science. Since you probably don't own this text, I will look for an online resource to show what I am saying. Basically the book says that fact has little to do with science, which is about theories that explain facts and wield broad explanatory power (notably this book does not make the same claim about hypothesis I did above. The book says the main difference between theory and hypotheses is scope, with theories having very large scope, I explained hypotheses as being a theory on unproven facts. That may be my mistake, I'm not sure). This is how I understand the words theory and fact. I have never heard of fact having a special scientific meaning outside of some Wikipedia articles, which led me to believe that some wikipedian made it up. As for where I disagree with this article, that is just that I don't believe evolution to be a fact, or for that matter any other scientific theory. As far as philosophy of science goes, I haven't taken a course on it, but my understanding (which could be wrong) is that science is a method of understanding the world, distinct from religion or philosophy and apart from mathematics (a singular discipline, which has nothing to do with explaining the natural world) and that the main focus of science is on theories that cannot be proven but which make match the given data and have predictive power. I hope that made sense.