It is both an invitation and a conclusion. As you note, we need to decide who to trust, and we can't do sufficient research. So we need heuristics. The heuris

It is both an invitation and a conclusion. As you note, we need to decide who to trust, and we can't do sufficient research. So we need heuristics. The heuristics that I recommend are these: 1. Certainty, especially if there is debate among experts, indicates likely cognitive bias. 2. The ability to discuss how multiple perspectives would lead different people to different conclusions, suggests good reasoning. 3. A documented history of quantitative reasoning, along with data showing historical accuracy, is the best evidence of a trustworthy source. I base those heuristics on the research in https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp/0691128715 https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/d.... Applying this heuristic to "sounds certain" results in a conclusion, that is an invitation to further research that may or may not happen.