Sometimes I get involved in a Facebook conversation (and I don't usually stay in these more than 2 posts) where someone comes along and starts spouting counter-factual nonsense and calling it "fact." Often, it's the same person over and over. I tend to start ignoring this person, except when I feel the audience reading the thread may be different. The reason that the differing audience is important to me: I hear one nutjob spout some awful lie, then I start to see it elsewhere, because someone read it. We seem inherently inclined to believe what we read, at least if it matches how we imagine the world to be when we read it, and then we seem unable to change that belief when and if we finally read something else that contradicts this read "knowledge." Many of the folks who practice this sort of "knowing," present their claims as "fact." I've got news for them (not that they will ever believe me), but a fact is something that is true whether you wish to believe it or whether it is useful to you. Choosing to believe something, especially something that is useful to you (and I included psychologically useful here) does not, in fact, make it a fact.
I place a great deal of importance on truth, on fact, on factual knowledge. This is not because of my career, rather my career is because of this.