Have you ever tried making an unassailable claim? It’s a worthwhile exercise, because you’ll quickly realize that make a strong claim requires a narrowly-defined scope. Science journals have countless examples of this, but they are horrifically boring and few people read them.
How about making an argument? Also worthwhile, because you can observe how an argument often becomes stronger with curation. A pure recitation of events is dull. But the processing of information: selectively prioritizing some facts or sharing context, renders the information digestible (even fun!). Everyone argues.
In summary, there’s a tradeoff between making communication digestible vs precise. And if you want multiple people to internalize the information, process it accordingly.
My application - when training employees, I’d comment that, “85% of what I say is correct, but it’s up to you to determine which.” I find it helpful to utilize heuristics which make the world a more comprehensible place, even if they’re not perfect. Since we’re going to make our editorial choices regardless, we might as well be explicit about it (and correspondingly humble).
Another application – Learning the limits of objective truth is useful, but boring. I try to regularly read primary source science journals. Improves brain fitness, and clarifies what we actually know about the world.