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