I just finished watching a documentary called Active Measures which summarizes everything that is publicly known about how the Russians interfered in the 2016 US election. One of the key points of film was that before the election, Russia spread fake news articles about Hilary Clinton across Facebook and other social media sites. The goal of the Russians was to generate so much fake news that if the average person was bombarded with these stories over a long enough period, they would say to themselves "Well some of this has to be true". This got me thinking about the Russian investigation. There is so much out there. Money laundering, secret meetings, Trump's constant praise of Putin, etc. Some of this has to be true. Right? Or am I just falling for the same trap in believing where there is smoke there is fire? If I were to truly take a critical viewpoint, the only way to be 100% certain if Russia interfered with the election in order to elect Trump is to examine all the evidence, in as much minute detail myself. However there is a problem. The expertise required to go through all the information and the time requirements are so great that it is impossible for a single person to do this. So I'm at a dilemma, I can't make a conclusion myself so I'm forced to believe the conclusion someone else has made. So how does one go about determining who and what to believe? By the way, this isn't meant to be a political thread, it just happens to be specific topic that got me thinking about how to determine the trustworthiness of people and information. The goal of this thread is to answer the question asked in the title and it can be applied to any number of situations. Do you trust the physicist that says time doesn't flow at a constant rate even though that conflicts with everyday experience? Do you trust your parents about what day you were born on even though you can't remember a single thing about it? Do you trust the medical study that says the sugar in blueberries can give you diabetes?