How many people actually question everything they are told & research the core source of the topic not from bias places?

[dragoblack]

For reals, i see so many people just blindly believing whatever they are told without researching the source of the topic. I especially see it in trump Supporters with conspiracy theories, their sources being entertainment news, conspiracy podcasts, things they hear from other people with their mindset, talking about things they have no clue about, and of course blindly believing whatever comes out of trump's mouth. Now that is not to say that the Democrats side doesn't have it's fair share of believing biased news articles, not seeing the full story, spouting shite they have no clue about, and giving emotional responses.
The biggest issue is people who can't calmly talk about stuff and just want the insult or emotionally rant just rejecting any and all possible information. I've also noticed most get their information from 3rd party sources instead of going to ground zero, so to speak, for the information.
I personally question and research everything especially when it comes to politicians and when i and when many are echo chambering. I get my source from legal law archives, talking to those who were at the talked about event, science research archives, watching live streamed court/house/senate proceedings, proper government program sites, national library of medicine, ... etc. i don't deal with 3rd part, i go to the core source

[dovendyret]

Depends on the topic at hand and who I'm getting the information from.

Some topics, I do minor research in - others I go deep in research, where I only accept peer reviewed studies and source materials.

When it comes to politics - then eh, all parties are just trying to get more power & we've a lot of them. Of course I've a party that I support - because they've similar values to mine: but I'll never just blindly follow them. Here I do research about the subjects I find interesting - others I don't need to; since I'm already possess knowledge about the issues at hand & some I'm simply not that interested in tbh.

[HighlyVolatile]

I don't actually believe anything; I suppose I'm the opposite of the conspiracy theorist. I also never follow anyone's advice.

I do pretend like I believe things sometimes to streamline conversation and navigate the world. Yet I don't actually believe anything.

[HighlyVolatile]

Mostly I value things. For example, I value pizza, even if I'm not 100% sure that pizza even exists or if I've had it before, or if even words like "pizza" exist outside of my own mind. Yet I value what appears to be the taste of it. It's never about what is right and wrong to me: just what I enjoy.

[HighlyVolatile]

I do my share of research, of course. I come from a scientific and engineering background and am both by trade (although more engineer than a scientist), and contribute my own share of publications. Yet I'm never really trying to look for something to believe in, or even necessarily interested in what is true. I'm only interested in what I like the most and what I find most useful to my life.

[HighlyVolatile]

Actually, that sounded a bit like crazy talk in hindsight. A lot of it might relate to whether we're more engineers or scientists.

Suppose we're tasked to engineer the world's tallest building: to break a new world record. In that case, while we should certainly be aware of and value the principles found in structural engineering, it's unlikely that we'll succeed solely through the most rigorous scientific mindset that only believes that which withstands the most rigorous tests. That would be something shared in common by all serious engineers in this context.

So in order to break a new world record, we may have to come to "believe" things that aren't entirely accurate, or able to withstand the most rigorous tests of the scientific method, in order to give us that edge. I frequently "believe" such things, although I don't actually believe them since I'm well aware that they're unlikely to be entirely accurate absent such rigorous testing. It's more like I value them. They're "beautiful" and "useful" even if they aren't "true".