Not necessarily. "Facts" have to also be collaborated and proven as well. "Facts" to you may not be facts to another. Four people who watch an accident may have four different accounts of the same accident, so "facts" are not always as solid as you might think. Even scientific "fact" may not be unanimous. "Circumstantial evidence" is considered oftentimes more reliable than eyewitness accounts.
What is solid is truth, but that is another story and another discussion.
Well, that is certainly the liberal, post-modern misdset. It's not normally subscribed to among traditionalists or conservatives, but I guess it can be when it suits the purpose.