>Except for first hand experience on a subject, you will never be able to find a source that is inherently trustable

Even first hand experience isn't trustworthy. Our memory is so deeply flawed that I can't even tell with certainty which first-hand experiences I had. Simply presenting "evidence" that you should remember something can cause your brain to make that memory up. And if the experience is genuine and and I try to remember some detail I didn't pay close attention to, my brain will most likely just make it up. So the only reliable way to learn from personal experience is to learn during the experience, but confirmation bias will make me miss most opportunities to learn.

Honestly, it's amazing that we are capable of learning at all.

First of all, good education should come from schools.

Being able to further educate yourself and judge the trustworthiness of sources are direct results of a good primary education.

Many western states have criminally decreased education expanses for decades and the current state of the civilization is in big parts a result of that.

This shit is infectious, too. Many stupid people think their kids don't need a good education, even if there's a chance for them to get one.

And if schoolbooks are filled with 'fake news'. All you've done at this point is create an appeal to authority.

http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

A good education is far more than just textbooks. Critical thinking is what is missing here - and is what needs to be taught in schools.

Mindless regurgitation of facts doesn't really help anyone - and that's the majority of what I've seen in highschools in America.

I think this is the key point. Even if schools presented largely propaganda but they spent an effective amount of time teaching useful critical thinking then the students might have enough experience/tools to think for themselves and not accept everything in the books.

I think the type of education they're talking about is not formal education like in school but how to educate yourself about today's events. Not something you could or should go to school for.

I'm not so sure, critical reading/thinking skills could be taught in school, just take newspaper articles and pick out the parts that are fake/misleading. Finding teachers able to do this may be easier said than done though, as would doing it in a non-partisan way.

Here are the "peers" that I have reviewing what I hear from politicians: the salary on my paycheck, the tax figures on that paycheck, and the prices at the gas station and supermarket. I don't need to pore over news editorials and blogs posts or watch commentators on any TV channel to know which political figure is making more sense and describing reality more accurately.

I agree that if you have “tangible” evidence of a fact it makes it easier to disprove a claim. I would still be wary of this logic, as chain of events can be unintuitive as well.

For instance some politicians make a bold move that has clear and immediate positive effect. Yet if it has huge indirect and long term consequences that only surface once they are out of office, from your perspective they will get all the credits and none of the blame.

Having different perspectives from “experts” is in my opinion important. The problem is of course to find the right experts, and to have an insight on their limits or their biases, which is usually the beginning of become a kind of expert yourself.

I think history would be a good source. We think we're facing unique challenges but the debates we're having today are already eerily discussed ad nauseam by Greek thinkers. And first sources are already so accessible that it's difficult to land on untrustworthy extractions unless you read contemporary commentaries.