[sergioj97]

I assume you mean acknowledging the different credibility of different sources, instead of just not believing anything at all. It's just as with the academia thing. I don't think the solution is to dismiss formal research and consider it unscientific, but to acknowledge it's weaknesses, specially in specific fields.

[sjwpv]

To tell you the truth I don't have time, energy or knowledge to find the sources of all news and research I see and investigate and assess the credibility of them, so I simply don't believe anything.

This problem has existed since forever, and back in the day I believed something like reddit would work because real humans would do the curation for me and call out bad news/research/etc, but we all know how that turned out.

[krapp]

>To tell you the truth I don't have time, energy or knowledge to find the sources of all news and research I see and investigate and assess the credibility of them, so I simply don't believe anything.

So you don't even believe Donald Trump is the President of the United States, because you refuse to believe the media when it covered the campaign and election?

I'm going to guess you either don't actually hold this point of view, otherwise you could barely function in society.

[sjwpv]

I think you're taking it too literally. What I mean is that, as an example, if they say $POLITICAL_FIGURE has said this or that, I will suspect they're taking the words out of context, but I am not going to find and watch the entire video, because I don't have the necessary time and energy to do that.

[PakG1]

I think this is what is called hyperbole.