Science fiction vs. science fact

There are two things I'd like to bring to the table, the chicken and egg of science, and the view of science.

The chicken and egg of science is just like the old question, which one came first? Sadly I'm not going to answer that; but the same problem exists in science where science-fiction becomes science fact over time so who is in the driving seat? Well lots of science-fiction becomes science fact when authors who use their imagination and take science a few steps further along the path of discovery thereby provoking scientists to develop the technology to turn fiction into fact. Without the underlying theory of science the authors would not have, in most cases, have thought of their ideas in the first place.This is why I call it the chicken and egg of science.

I was going to call the next part the facts of science but it became the views of science for a reason.

You see science facts are really just points of view, a 'working hypothesis' that a scientist fits into the current facts, but as we explorer the facts they are rewritten. So, to call it a science fact is really a fallacy; it is more accurate to call it a view point from which to develop a strand of enquiry in the laboratory. New knowledge brings new facts. Without knowing everything in the universe we can never know that all the facts. Even Einstein's work is now under question. He also stated that you have to first imagine then go about proving or disproving any new theory.