I'm someone less agitated!

My thinking is that conclusions we draw are almost always capable of being improved, refined, or expanded upon whether we're confident enough to label them facts or theories. That being said, in most academic settings, the professor's job is to teach the prevailing scientific consensus. In this context, the difference between theory and fact is rather miniscule.

Why is this? Anybody versed and insightful enough to advance our collective thinking on a topic is going to know whether it's a theory or fact well before they are capable of 'disproving' it.

Anecdotally, I see many undergrad students trying to re-invent the wheel before they are sufficiently knowledgeable to advance the field. The rare ones who are ready to make that impact... well, they're usually at the level where calculating our collective uncertainty (i.e. is this a theory or fact?) is a trivially easy task (as opposed to 'debunking' common convention, which is typically much harder).

What benefits do you see in further highlighting degree of certainty? This is just my personal perspective.