[Barrin92]

For starters a lot of confusion arises when people don't distinguish between truths and facts, the article itself is guilty of this. Facts are empirical, usually simple, self-revealing observations about the world. Truths are subjective and always hold an element of belief. You can believe something to be true, you can't be believe something to be a fact. Truths are underpinned by a subjective stance towards an object, facts are not. There can be competing truths, there can't be competing facts. When it comes to facts, rationality or evidence matter a lot, when it comes to truths a lot of different values start to be important.

Take the example from the article

"It reminds me of the bumper stickers on trucks saying that vehicles must stay back at least 200 feet because the driver is not responsible for damage done to other vehicles by falling rocks. It's nonsense of course. The sign on the truck does not let the company off the hook."

Is it "of course" nonsense? How far one's responsibility on the road extends isn't a factual question. Sure, there's more or less defensible positions, but you're not discussing the weight, the speed, or the position of the truck, you're discussing what social behavior is tolerable or not, who is culpable in case of an accident.

Trying to resolve discussions about the truth or falsehood of beliefs as if they were questions of fact is very common today, because the latter is much easier, but it fundamentally just causes a lot of confusion.