I understand the logic of what you're saying but doesn't it tend towards thinking that are no trustworthy sources of information other then those that postulate

I understand the logic of what you're saying but doesn't it tend towards thinking that are no trustworthy sources of information other then those that postulate things you already believe in or at least those that agree with conventional wisdom? Not that I have a better idea - generally chasing down methodological errors if not ought right falsehood is more trouble then it's worth (liars can lie faster then the truth can move) but it makes me edgy when I say it out loud. This could all be because in this particular case I don't particularly disagree with the premise.