Would 'scientific fact' work though?
No. Everything in science is falsifiable and open to challenge.
[1] What if a rational assessment of inconclusive data weighs you towards the wrong direction.
It's certainly possible to be completely deceived by reality.
Whenever you act where an outcome matters to you, you will take the expected outcomes into account. Even if you say "I don't know" you still have to make decisions about what you do about an issue.
Maybe http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/06/on-first-looking-into-chapmans-pop-bayesianism/ is worth reading for you. The kind of "I don't know that you advocate is what Scott calls Anton-Wilsonism.
I would challenge your 'in most cases' statement.
When doing credence calibration I don't get result that indicate that I should label all claims 50/50.
No. Everything in science is falsifiable and open to challenge.
I understand and agree with that. I am just trying to find the term I can use when discussing scientific results. I thought 'scientific fact' was ok cause it includes 'scientific' which implies all the rest. But yes the word 'fact' is misleading. Should we just call it 'scientific result'? What do you recommend?
Maybe http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/06/on-first-looking-into-chapmans-pop-bayesianism/ is worth reading for you.
I can't stress enough how useful that link is to me as a new LW...
This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.
Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.
To any future monthly posters of SQ threads, please remember to add the "stupid_questions" tag.