> Raw facts are meaningless without models, theories, or even, ideologies.
No, they're not. They just don't allow you to make predictions without a model. But you don't need to agree on a theoretical model to agree that, for example, Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.
> You always have to have a theory in order to predict the future based on facts and then have experiments to verify the predictions.
A "theory" in this sense can be just about anything, from a simple guess to a detailed mathematical model with lots of ramifications. So I don't see that much is gained by making this observation.
Allow me to clarify: facts are meaningless in the literal sense that facts are devoid of meaning without interpretation. When you say facts be confirmed by experiments, the very confirmation already presupposes the existence of criteria by which you prove or disprove facts. Those criteria are precisely what constitutes theories.
Now back to the original question, it's true you can establish facts through experiments, but since facts are always mediated by theories, it's not very useful to discuss how one deals with purely raw facts and more useful to discuss how one approaches truth from mediated facts. I think OP meant facts in this sense.
I didn't say facts are confirmed by experiments. Facts are the experimental setup and results: what was done and what happened. Nothing has to be "confirmed"; the facts just are.
Theoretical models can be confirmed by experiments, but models are not facts. You appear to have the same confusion about this that MatrixMan has.
No, they're not. They just don't allow you to make predictions without a model. But you don't need to agree on a theoretical model to agree that, for example, Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.
> You always have to have a theory in order to predict the future based on facts and then have experiments to verify the predictions.
A "theory" in this sense can be just about anything, from a simple guess to a detailed mathematical model with lots of ramifications. So I don't see that much is gained by making this observation.