To be pendantic, science doesn't give anybody facts. It can help identify provable lies and identify the most-useful theories, but when done correctly it cares only a little more about "fact" as it does "truth".
Basic fundamental theorems like "reality is real" are pretty entwined in our language, though, so the distinction isn't always a useful one.
By way of rambling example : my phone tells me that it's 12:30 now and 26 degrees F outside. You in reading this only know as a fact that it's what the text says. You don't strictly know:
- That I actually wrote it
- That I actually looked at my phone
- That I faithfully reported it.
- That I believe it to true
- That the phone is an accurate report of the local weather station
- That the weather station was calibrated correctly
- What the expected variation between that station and my residence is.
For all practical purposes you can assume that they're all true and factual, though. But they're neither definitely true nor even scientifically useful facts.
I wish more pop science reporters would report on "dark energy" and "dark matter" as the questions they are.
Dark energy is "our best models of physics say redshift is due to movement away, and when we apply that model to our best observations the furthest galaxies appear to be accelerating, what the fuck is making them accelerate"?
(Dark matter is, simpler, "why are all these galaxies rotating as if they have way more matter than we can see -- and why the fuck can't we see that matter?")