If my arguments aren't satisfying to you, ere's two interesting quotes on the subject:
via Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact)
"In science 'fact' is an objective and verifiable observation. It is usually contrasted to a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. In the philosophy of science, it has often been called into question (famously by Thomas Kuhn, but by others as well) whether scientific facts are always "theory-laden" to some degree (as knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires some presupposition about the facts themselves). In the field of science studies, "scientific facts" are generally understood to be entities which exist within complex social structures of trust, accreditation, institutions, and individual practices."
another via skepdic.com (
http://skepdic.com/science.html)
"Scientific facts, like scientific theories, are not infallible certainties. Facts involve not only easily testable perceptual elements; they also involve interpretation.
Noted paleoanthropologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould reminds us that in science 'fact' can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould 1983, 254). However, facts and theories are different things, notes Gould, "not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." In Popper's words: "Theories are nets cast to catch what we call 'the world': to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer." "
So according to these sources there are "Scientific Facts" that fall in line with your definition of a fact, but theory and fact still remain seperate entities.
