This is a little off the topic of science, but I think the same principles of good science vs bad can be applied to politics. People who are good at science are good at the critical thinking necessary to distinguish truth vs falsity in political discussions.
I recently had a discussion with a Trump supporter defending the belief that the "media" are all lying about Trump and there is a left-wing conspiracy to discredit him. Fox News says one thing, Rachel Maddow says another. How do we know what is true? Can we rely on fact-checking websites? No, they are "part of the conspiracy".
I gave him 100 examples of provable lies by Trump.
No good. The NY Times itself is "lying".
I asked for an example of the "media" lying about Trump. He said he heard a statement that Fox News "represents" the Republican Party. That's a statement of opinion, not a lie. It seems we have a basic problem even agreeing on the definition of "lie". A lie is more than a simple mis-statement of fact. It has to be done deliberately with the intention to deceive. If the error is corrected as soon as it is discovered, that is just a mistake, not a lie. If the error is never corrected, and is repeated again and again, and it is something easily checked, then it becomes a lie (and that includes willful ignorance). We may not be able to prove intent, but "beyond reasonable doubt" is good enough. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knows Obama was not born in Kenya.
Why are there so many people living in a separate "right-wing reality" with its own "alternative facts", and what seems like complete isolation from the real world? This includes people who are intelligent and quite capable of critical thinking in areas other than politics. I believe that this right-wing reality serves a need to express anger at our political system. Truth does not matter when you feel that kind of anger.