> ...careers and lives you followed for years will enjoy a different trust than a piece of paper that you find on the street, written in Comic Sans, even if bot

> ...careers and lives you followed for years will enjoy a different trust than a piece of paper that you find on the street, written in Comic Sans, even if both tell you the exact same words. This is an entirely different thing: neither of these would be facts, but claims (hypotheses, statements, beliefs...). Building trust will make you more likely to believe someone's claims are factual, but the only facts are the ones proper scientific studies base their interpretation on. Even conclusions of most scientific studies are usually premises and hypotheses, more or less supported by the facts in those studies. As such, a scientific podcaster would be twice removed from the actual data: they'd be interpreting the interpretation of the facts a research team has collected. You trust them at your own peril. Facts are provable/observable things which can be reproduced by others. That's why we've got the reproducibility crisis in science since the introduction of "metrics-based" science: papers are published for career advancement (sometimes with falsified data, which is why reproducibility is important before we call them "facts"), and science now comes second. In short, it's all quite simple. But it's all so elaborate, draining and time consuming, which is why we practically must trust others' interpretation of facts. As long as you are aware that we are mostly working with interpretations and not facts, once you really want to drill down for a topic you deeply care about, you can. And that opens up your mind to changing your opinion easily.