I trust intellectual honesty (eg updates, errata, retractions).
--
I was an activist for a while. Election integrity and voter privacy (secret ballot). I blogged about my efforts. I shared all my work, so people could factcheck too. I revised my views as I learned more. I tried very hard to present the alternate views (conclusions) of the people I disagreed with.
It's no different than investigative journalism.
The real trick, the hard part, is figuring out how to fund the work.
And if I read your blog I probably wouldn't trust your work either. I have no way of knowing if you are citing everything or only the sources that support the story you want to write.
If your point is you should only trust yourself, then that's hard to argue with.
I've resolved this dilemma by settling for True Enough.
I used to be a Popperian. While I still think that's the ideal, in practice it seems impractical.
Now I'm a prediction engine. Learn enough to feel comfortable making a decision. If results don't match expectations, go back and update my ruleset, try again.
I trust multiple sourcing.
I trust verified data and leg work.
I trust intellectual honesty (eg updates, errata, retractions).
--
I was an activist for a while. Election integrity and voter privacy (secret ballot). I blogged about my efforts. I shared all my work, so people could factcheck too. I revised my views as I learned more. I tried very hard to present the alternate views (conclusions) of the people I disagreed with.
It's no different than investigative journalism.
The real trick, the hard part, is figuring out how to fund the work.