>>12765279Thanks for your input.
>If you're looking for a meta kind of truth, sorry, it doesn't exist. Truth is just a vague word that refers to a few similar notions from different domains.This especially helped.
>>12766752It all started when I realized I don't know who or what to trust because of the following points:
1. No one has the time to properly research everything about everything so sometimes we have to trust people.
2. The scientific or any other consensus that doesn't deal with topics similar to "what is the best ice cream flavor" has sometimes been erroneous, in some cases it has been settled ignoring better evidence or has refused to change soon after better evidence emerges due to a variety of reasons which can include dogmatic thinking and a consensus is basically just a popularity contest.
3. Dealing with the exact same topic, sources of information from expert(s) with credentials and/or authority sometimes is wrong while the ones from people who can be considered experts with none of that can sometimes be factual.
4. Experts have contradicted each other all the time. A controversial example I can give you is that apparently dental plaque and tartar are not inherently detrimental to the teeth or surrounding structures, it can be made so by what you ingest; big if true.
5. An expert or a source of information can mostly be correct but occasionally state something completely untrue.
What I desire is know how to, keeping in mind the limited time I and I think all of us have, determine if particular information, from all kinds of subjects (politics, personal relationships, biology, hygiene, economics, etc.), is either true, true enough or has the best evidence behind so I can be confident I'm doing MY BEST to make right decisions; emphasizing "my best" because I'm aware mistakes can and will be made and new data can prove I was wrong all along.
>>12766759Not at all, read what I typed above.
