facts in the courtroom v. facts in the laboratory

How do facts as understood by the scientific profession and laboratory context compare and contrast with facts as understood by the legal profession and courtroom context? There are many similarities but there must also be some major differences.

Facts are facts, namely truths. But, according to the rules of evidence, some facts are admissible in court, and some facts are not admissible. This will vary as between criminal and civil cases, and also as among states depending on whether the action is federal or state.

So an inadmissible fact is meaningless in the courtroom though it may still carry weight outside of the courtroom. Seem like refusal to admit a fact is lying by omission especially if an inadmissible fact could outweigh or balance out an admissible fact. This is definitely a big difference from scientific fact. The jury does not consider all the evidence, only all the admissible evidence.

Is the term "legal fact" safe to use in contrast to "scientific fact" or does it have some more technical meaning?

For example: can we say that legal facts are scientific facts minus what is inadmissible?

Venn Diagram? Are scientific facts and legal facts overlapping circles within the bigger circle simply labeled "facts"? If so, what other kinds of facts are there?

People always say that "a fact is a fact"
but
The facts about a physical process or a chemical reaction can be directly demonstrated.
The facts about history or a historical process (evoloution, cosmology) can not be directly demonstrated.
The law deals more with evidence, verdicts and precedents than with facts.
Some evidence consists of facts of various kinds and with various degrees of reliability. Eye witness descriptions (notroiously inaccurate), videotape pretty good, fiber analysis, fingerprints and blood types (not so good), DNA fingerprints (pretty good).
The verdicts in a courtroom (not always justice, not always based on truth). For criminal cases "beyond the shadow of a doubt", for civil cases "the preponderance of evidence". Not all facts are equal and not all truth is equally reliable or equally confirmed.

How do facts as understood by the scientific profession and laboratory context compare and contrast with facts as understood by the legal profession and courtroom context? There are many similarities but there must also be some major differences.

As far as the difference between scientific facts and legal facts, there is systematic similarity and a subtle difference. Perhaps one of the most important concepts the legal system has to offer is the burden of proof. What it means superficially is the quantum of evidence required for a given party to prevail in an adequate defense or claim. The burden of proof varies widely and there is not set standard for it except that what must be proven must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is itself a complex attempt to answer the question "how much is enough." There in fact two coinciding parts of the burden of proof though, which are the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.

The burden of production is essentially a parties duty to come forward with evidence (or facts? however have you) which is vital in the discovery phase of a trial. Interestingly, even an inconclusive piece of evidence can move a trial forward. It is then based on either party depending on the nature of the case to shift the burden of persuasion, essentially convincing the trier that all evidence is considered and in a certain favor.

In many ways, you could look at the facts considered in a legal context as this; a real world issue is presented, a model and prediction is presented in the form of a defense, etc., data is submitted (burden of production),evidence is deliberated (burden of persuasion) which leads to a ruling. Honestly, doesn't this sound a lot like the standard scientific method? Scientific method requires you have a real world episode, a theoretical model whose fit with the real world is at issue, a prediction, data, evidence and counter evidence which leads to a conclusion (positive or negative).

The framework is essentially the same between a scientific context and a legal context. But facts are treated somewhat differently. Take for example that some facts can be impermissible in court. This could be seen as a denial of clear and distinct facts? which in a generic scientific context would be unacceptable.

To say that something is a fact in one sense of that term is only to say it is a truth. In another sense of the term, "fact" it is to say that it is a known truth. There are, of course, different kinds of truths, and there are different ways of knowing them (and/or discovering or confirming them) and different ways of weighing them, but, for all that, a truth is a truth.

No. There are rules of evidence, For example (with some exceptions) hearsay evidence is inadmissible. But there are good reasons for that. I have never heard the term, "legal fact" (except, perhaps, in connection with facts about the law). As I said, facts are just truths. But some are admissible in a court room, and some are not. There is a contrast between admissible and inadmissible facts, not between legal facts and scientific facts.

How do facts as understood by the scientific profession and laboratory context compare and contrast with facts as understood by the legal profession and courtroom context? There are many similarities but there must also be some major differences.

A fact is a known truth?
That might be OK except for the problems with both the concepts of "knowing, epistomology" and "truth" (What is truth?).

Some facts are more reliable and more certain and closer to truth than others? Water is composed of the elements hydrogen and oxygen seems more established and more comfirmable than say the earth is warming due to human activity or Napolean was a megalomaniac.
An eyewitness reporting the "facts" of a crime is less reliable than a videotape of the event. Neither "facts", "knowing" or "truth" are all that easy to determine and to define.

Theories of knowledge and definitions of truth directly relate to the concept of "fact" and not all "facts" have equal truth value. Scientific "facts" generally are regarded as the most reliable and the most confirmable so everybody likes to put "scientific" in front of their fact assertions but most courtroom facts are not scientific facts.

And, of course, there is the problem of "what" and "is" too. We cannot answer all questions at once. If scientists started worrying about what "cause" means before they tried discovering what the cause of polio was, they would never have gotten to find out what was the cause of polio. It isn't that the question, what is a cause is not important. It is that the question is not directly relevant. That there is a distinction between two meaning of fact, is true whether or not we know the meaning of true. Just as that there is a distinction between two meanings of "bank" is true even if we don't have a fix on the meaning of "meaning" or the meaning of "true". First things first, second things second, and third things, third. How many "truth values" do you think there are. And, by the way, what do you mean by "truth-value"? In classical logic we have the saying, "partly false, completely false".

...I mean can you really be certain that "If scientists started worrying about what "cause" means before they tried discovering what the cause of polio was, they would never have gotten to find out what was the cause of polio"...because if I follow the logic correctly they could n?t tell what the cause in fact was without knowing exactly what Cause itself can be...

Whose logic is that (I ask with great trepidation)? Not mine.

I?m willing to learn, please clarify !

Learn what? I asked a question. Whose logic are you talking about? .because if I follow the logic correctly they could n?t tell what the cause

"If scientists started worrying about what "cause" means before they tried discovering what the cause of polio was, they would never have gotten to find out what was the cause of polio"

Whose else ??? Yours !

"If scientists started worrying about what "cause" means before they tried discovering what the cause of polio was, they would never have gotten to find out what was the cause of polio"