Those who put their faith in the scientific method might argue that there are no facts.
A scientist would describe our knowledge as a collection of theories.
To advance the state of the art, they then make predictions based upon those theories, and conduct experiments to test them. The wording they use to express their results is that either the evidence supported or did not support the theory.
A scientist might then express an opinion based upon the collection of experiments and results. In my opinion, scientists are often criticized unfairly for being overly wordy, and carefully worded in their statements, which makes it hard for non-scientists to understand what they are saying. As evidence, I'd point to harsh and unfair criticism of Dr. Taylor's Empire Club speech, and to similar harsh and unfair characterisation of some recent posts on this board.
It is far easier to vandalize than to build, and by vandals, I mean those who throw bricks at carefully constructed windows, then run and hide.
To build a higher stock price, in the absence of news will require an increase in perceived value, or a reduction in perceived risk. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree, but I base my opinions upon theory, prediction, experiment, observation and interpretation, and carefully reported and accurate characterization of results.
I'll bet Dr. Taylor uses the same scientific method in his field of endeavour, and for that he has my admiration, even though he has been criticized harshly by non-scientific pundits on this board for the very methodology that has created so much value in the first place.
