Knowledge in the "hard sciences" seems to depend entirely on attested facts upon which a theory is built, the goal of which is to imagine the most plausible none-attested facts (which are in truth no facts). A theory is then a construct which augments - through a mouvement, slow and hesitating - a range of
- attested facts (how to observe them, where to look for them, etc.)
- none-attested facts which are most likely to fit both the attested facts (external, both old and new) and the internal orientation of the addable none-attested facts.
My language and way of presenting the subject is entirely personal, I have no education on the subject, so forgive in advance the presentation. I do however think the idea is conveyed.
Question: why the need for Theory - outside from the sentiment of coherence or the occasional assistance in direction of research ?
Explanation of the question: It seems to me that we could be at a point where we could start collecting attested facts (granted it will be through the prism of some model, a model is however less intrusive than a theory) without trying to overly extend our epistemology to what is not attested. It is as if we picked-up the "habit" of building theories because they were justifiable in a given part of our history (because of how few attested facts we were able to gather), the habit today might be costly, since we could know more without having to presume. This does not mean we should try and make a whole out of the fragments, but that would and should come naturally once enough attested facts emerge a viable grand scale image (a couple [set of attested facts, set of models] is intuitive). It's forcing such an image which seems to be problematic in my opinion.