facts in the courtroom v. facts in the laboratory

From the sentence did they found it or not ? What do you conclude ?

That they found it or not. I don't understand your question. They found the cause of polio. That is an historical fact. Do they know the analysis of cause. No. They are not even philosophers, and I am sure thay had more urgent things to do than investigate the analysis of cause. Like finding out the cause of polio. Why don't you take a breath or two, think about what you are asking, and then ask it?

I really really can?t follow you in that assumption, I?m sorry !

...They may well have found that something relates to Polio if they don?t know what Cause is, or, if they do know what Cause is, they indeed have found what Caused the Polio...

But they don't know what causation is, and they did find the cause (and cure) or polio. So, how do you explain that? I doubt whether most working scientists even care much about what causation is. If asked, many would say that they leave that to philosophers. Most would ask you not to bother them with irrelevant philosophical questions. And I would say they are right to say so.

I tend to think "absolute truth" and "absolute certainty" are not possible to obtain in the "real" world. At best we get approximations to truth to which we lend more or less credibility. The same applies to assertions of "fact". The factual testimony of the twice convicted felon given a plea deal for his "cooperation" is less credible, less reliable, has less truth value, than that of the responsible member of the community known for his honesty.
DNA evidence has more truth value than fingerprint evidence.
Newton's law of gravity has more truth value than speculations about the exact history of biological evolution.

It is precisely in assigning probabilities of being true or various weightings of truth value to the various pieces of evidence or facts that one makes a decision about the likely "truth" and reaches a decision or verdict. In all complex decision making situations the various facts are examined and weighted and a decision is reached (medicine, law, politics) which may or may not be accurate, reliable and predictive. People who assign equal value to all facts are the ones that can not make good decisions. Knowing what facts are important and what facts are relevant is the key to good judgment. "Partly false, completely false" does not work outside the perfect realm of logic. "Partly true, partly false" or "probably true, possibly false" or some other weighted judgment about the probability (not the certainty) of propositions factuality (probability of being true) is the pragmatic and practical truth.

A fact is a known truth. Known how and by whom? Truth as correspondence, consistency, coherence or consensus? Facts of law and facts of science are different both in their epistemology and their definition of truth. Not all facts are equal. Not all truths are equal. To label something as "scientific truth" generally lends a greater degree of confidence and reliability to the assertion precisely because the epistemology and definition of truth in science is different than that in other areas of "knowledge".

What is truth value? Importance, confirmation weight? what? In classical logic there are two truth values: true and false. Truth values have to do with whether a proposition is true or false. I have no idea what you have in mind by the term, "truth value" and, to tell you the truth, it does not interest me.

But they don't know what causation is, and they did find the cause (and cure) or polio. So, how do you explain that? I doubt whether most working scientists even care much about what causation is. If asked, many would say that they leave that to philosophers. Most would ask you not to bother them with irrelevant philosophical questions. And I would say they are right to say so.

How would they know they found the cause, if they didn't know what a cause was? I can find a dime on the street, but if I don't know what a dime is, I won't know what I've found.

Clearly if a scientist said, "I found the cause of polio", he would presumably know what a cause is. Otherwise, he was just be being nonsensical.

What is truth value? Importance, confirmation weight? what? In classical logic there are two truth values: true and false. Truth values have to do with whether a proposition is true or false. I have no idea what you have in mind by the term, "truth value" and, to tell you the truth, it does not interest me.

Well like it or not, in the real world, dealing with real decisions in law, in medicine, in almost any area we do not know with absolute certainty if a proposed fact or set of facts is/are "true or false" but we tend to have varying degrees of confidence or lack of confidence dependent on the source asserting, previous experience and the method of determining the "facts".

Facts determined by the scientific method tend to be given more weight than facts of history, or facts of testimony (recall or memory). Facts which can be directly demonstrated by experiment tend to be given more weight than "facts" for which there is only the preponderance of evidence. It is not possible to determine "true or false" in many if not most instances or in any highly complex situation, so we weigh the evidence (the facts) assign various probablities of truth, apply reason and make a decision. Not too different from philosophy as reasoned speculation as opposed to metaphysical truth.

There is a reason we talk about hard and soft sciences. Some legal facts are also scientific facts but most legal facts are not scientific facts. Legal facts generally do not have the reliability or predictive power of scientific facts. We all know and accept this but it creates difficulty with the concept of "knowing", the concept of "fact" and the concept of "truth". It is because scientific truth is often truth by correspondence, coherence, consistency and consensus together and the predictive power and reliability of science that we find scientific facts so attractive. A beacon of relative certainty in an uncertain world.

Are we interested in facts in court vs facts in science
or
laws versus facts?

Facts are the object of science.
Laws are the object of the legal profession.

Laws trump facts in the courtroom.
e.g. some facts are inadmissible

Facts trump the law in the laboratory.
e.g. even if the law forbids the belief that the earth to go round the sun the facts would still prove otherwise. (I guess I'm thinking of Galileo in this example. The facts of his observations v. the laws of the inquisitors. )

Laws are related to authority.
Facts are related to observation (empiricism).

It is a fact that there are laws, and it is a fact that a law is a law. The fact that some facts are inadmissible in a court does not mean that laws trump facts in court. The fact is still a fact. But for certain reasons (usually good ones) certain facts are not allowed to count.

It is ironic and amusing that you say that facts "trump" anything in the laboratory in the wake of Climategate. Apparently, in science, ideology trumps facts in Climate science, anyway. I would rather have the law trump facts than ideology, any day of the week.

I suppose you think that ideology never finds its way into the law books?

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.

I would rather have the law trump facts than ideology, any day of the week.

I suppose you think that ideology never finds its way into the law books?

No, I don't think that at all. But what has that to do with it?

I would rather have the law trump facts than ideology, any day of the week.

There is no fact uninterpreted.