From a meta point of view, it's a bit wild to be living in a point of history where people actively debate where our trusted source of truth should exist. For

From a meta point of view, it's a bit wild to be living in a point of history where people actively debate where our trusted source of truth should exist. For most of human history you didn't get many options. Before the printing press, King and God were the roots of trust and truth, because churches and states were the only ones with the power to disseminate information reliably on a regional, national, or global scale. The printing press added newspapers as potential roots of trust. Then radio stations. Then TV stations. Still, with limited papers and channels, and large barriers to entry, institutions arose and the status quo was not too much changed. Now we have an eruption of information as anybody can create a massive following for any idea with sufficient effort. The implications of this have yet to be realized. One thing is for sure: You can't really trust the science. Definitely not the media. And certainly not whoever you follow on Youtube, the links you see on HN/Reddit, or the posts shared on Facebook. It's hard to say you can know anything for sure these days.