The point is that, given the model and the assumptions, no conclusion other than that stated by the authors was possible. In the physical thought-style, the goal is to explain an observation by showing that it is compelled by basic physical laws or at least by phenomenological equations. In this thought-style, a scientific fact is a deduction from a relevant covering law made in the context of particular assumptions. In contrast, in the biological thought-style, the goal is to establish a scientific fact. In the biological thought-style, covering laws are not employed and linkage with covering laws, even in principle, is not required as a precondition for accepting observations as valid.
Scientific facts are generalizations that admit of exceptions.
The analysis of the reports in Issue 5249 of Science leading to the conclusion that two distinct thought-styles were utilized to produce scientific facts applies equally well to all subsequently published issues of Science that I have considered. It can permissibly be concluded, therefore that there presently exist two distinct valid methods for producing scientific knowledge. Consequently, the scientific facts of the physicist and the biologist are fundamentally different objects.