So the city has a layout, independent of me, and that layout is, as you say, a fact.
In order to recognize a particular patch of ground as a street, and not--say--an oddly shaped rock, I must recognize that it goes somewhere, so even though the facts are authoritative, I can only view them through their correspondence with a model (which is in this case, a map--either on paper or in my mind). Building that correspondence constitutes a successful test of the model.
So my belief about the best route to take to work is determined by my model which is more or less correct based on its correspondence with these facts.
Am I using the words your way now?
And if so, would you agree that "points A and B are 1 mile apart" is an example of a fact--or at least is a model that seems likely to be confirmed by contact with a fact?
In order to recognize a particular patch of ground as a street, and not--say--an oddly shaped rock, I must recognize that it goes somewhere, so even though the facts are authoritative, I can only view them through their correspondence with a model (which is in this case, a map--either on paper or in my mind). Building that correspondence constitutes a successful test of the model.
So my belief about the best route to take to work is determined by my model which is more or less correct based on its correspondence with these facts.
Am I using the words your way now?
And if so, would you agree that "points A and B are 1 mile apart" is an example of a fact--or at least is a model that seems likely to be confirmed by contact with a fact?