But I spent some(actually quite a lot of) time in Google Plus, and as I'm generally interested in neuroscience and cognition.. and related topics, I usually follow these kinds of posts. What I noticed about the scientific/pseudo-scientific posts ..and the interactions with them (Comments/ +1s/Shares), was how people usually by understanding only some parts of a text, or by just seeing a few familiar terms related to the topic of their interest, +1/Share it.
If someone's posts are interesting, or usually credible, it doesn't mean that we should accept whatever they say by faith. We can of course, but this lacks critical thinking. And we might obtain information this way, but not knowledge.
It's also dangerous, as it's a form of sophistry to put a desired pseudo-fact in-between a few known, accepted facts, or fabricate a seemingly coherent causal relation between them, or deviate an argument by long, correct but unrelated examples. Accepting without critical thinking and scrutinizing, instead of knowledge, leads to double ignorance.