Are the results of "trial and error" fact or theory? For example, if ten cows liked one type of grass, and eight the other, is it a fact or theory that the grass that was eaten the most is liked more?
Well, if you judged that the cows liked the grass simply by the fact that they ate it, it's a theory. If the cows told you that they liked it, it's a fact. And what does that have to do with "trial and error"? Trial and error is when you try to solve a problem with solutions which are not thought all-through, and when such solutions fail you learn from the experience and try something else (like trying to guess a password by entering all the combinations: try one, if it fails it's not the right one, try another etc.)
the result is fact if I combine a pole and a stick nothing interesting happens so it's an error but I now know for a fact that if i put a pole and a stick together nothing interesting happens
Trial and error is when you try to solve a problem with solutions which are not thought all-through, and when such solutions fail you learn from the experience and try something else (like trying to guess a password by entering all the combination: try one, if it fails it's not the right one, try another etc.)
I apologize, there was most likely a better word than "trial and error" that I could have used.
A theory can't be proved, because that which is proved is a fact (but not vice versa, a fact does not need to be proven, as long as society defines it as a fact). Test results may help in building up a theory, but you can also perform tests to prove a theory (that is, make it a fact). It depends on the situation and the test. The cow example can only conjure a theory, because you can only assume the reason for which a cow makes a choice. But do the same test on humans and ask them if they liked the food, and (unless they lied) you've got yourself a fact.
