# The Problem With Trusting Unreliable Sources **URL:** \ **Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology\ **Created:** [September 12, 2026, 4:02am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023 "2026-09-12T04:02:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Astorre](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/astorre/32/545_2.png) [@Astorre](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Astorre)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 6:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/61 "2026-09-16T18:02:44Z")
In my view, what we need is not so much reliable data or information, but rather a reliable way to direct our biased perspective toward identifying the flaws in our own convictions. ---
**Author:** ![Christoffer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/christoffer/32/717_2.png) [@Christoffer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Christoffer)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 7:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/62 "2026-09-16T19:22:41Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > Would you rather learn how to build wealth from a millionaire or a broke Redditor? Only one of them has proof it works. How can you verify such wealth is the result of their strategies and not a result of inheritance, or other means of pre-existing money that could be managed? Or just pure luck by someone who managed to score the timing on the gambling side of the stock or cryptomarket? Most finance influencers online, but also the already successful are not giving any advice that is actually working, otherwise everyone would have become wealthy. While the influencers use their spotlight to sell courses and grow their wealth further on the backs of desperate people seeking advice, the ”real” wealthy people are just part of a survivor’s bias the world has about them; we see them and think they did something right, but we’re not seeing any of the failures of others or the avoided pitfalls they dodged on sheer luck, only the result detached from context. And another case point against it is all the GameStop shenanigans which started on Reddit. The ones who gamed the market and got more wealthy than many professional traders… on the same premise that much of the stock market operates—gambling. You say you’re a truth seeker, but just attributing ”truth” to a millionaire over a Reddit user based purely on the result is a serious flaw for the purpose of truth. ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 7:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/63 "2026-09-16T19:50:03Z")
> [@ages](#): > > Are ‘you’ open to the idea that there might just be an actual way to see ‘Reality’ as It actually **is**? > Or, is ‘this’ just an absolute impossibility, to you? The world is filled with people who can do that, quite easily. Just ask them. I usually call them undeclared prophets of God. ---
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 11:16pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/64 "2026-09-16T23:16:19Z")
> [@Christoffer](#): > > How can you verify such wealth is the result of their strategies and not a result of inheritance, or other means of pre-existing money that could be managed? Or just pure luck by someone who managed to score the timing on the gambling side of the stock or cryptomarket? This isn’t complicated. Between a millionaire and a broke Redditor, or a grandmaster and a low-tier player, I’ll take the person with a track record every time. If you can’t win yourself, you won’t be able to teach me how to win. Sure, I take people with inherited wealth like Donald Trump with a grain of salt. And in cases like Dan Bilzerian, where it’s obvious the money isn’t a result of his own doing, I don’t take his advice at all. ---
**Author:** ![Christoffer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/christoffer/32/717_2.png) [@Christoffer](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Christoffer)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 12:49am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/65 "2026-09-17T00:49:56Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > This isn’t complicated. Between a millionaire and a broke Redditor, or a grandmaster and a low-tier player, I’ll take the person with a track record every time. If you can’t win yourself, you won’t be able to teach me how to win. > > Sure, I take people with inherited wealth like Donald Trump with a grain of salt. And in cases like Dan Bilzerian, where it’s obvious the money isn’t a result of his own doing, I don’t take his advice at all. Why do you take any single person’s advice and not rather a consensus or collective evaluation result? How do you evaluate the quality of a single person’s advice, regardless of their status? Especially if an advice or opinion from them aren’t considered established and verified? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 1:51am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/66 "2026-09-17T01:51:40Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > This isn’t complicated. Between a millionaire and a broke Redditor, or a grandmaster and a low-tier player, I’ll take the person with a track record every time. But I think it is more complicated. How do we know who has a legitimate track record? This is not necessarily clear. We can easily mistake success for expertise. There is always the problem of attribution. Con artists often cultivate the art of looking successful so the problem isn’t a choice between some reddit cocksucker and a millionaire, it’s how do we determine who is a legitimate purveyor of advice and this goes to the heart of the question what are the key indicators of expertise? ---
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 2:18am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/67 "2026-09-17T02:18:56Z")
> [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > But I think it is more complicated. How do we know who has a legitimate track record? This is not necessarily clear. We can easily mistake success for expertise. There is always the problem of attribution. Con artists often cultivate the art of looking successful so the problem isn’t a choice between some reddit cocksucker and a millionaire, it’s how do we determine who is a legitimate purveyor of advice and this goes to the heart of the question what are the key indicators of expertise? You’re right that success alone doesn’t automatically prove expertise, but that doesn’t undermine my point it actually strengthens it. Obviously, you don’t blindly trust someone just because they’re wealthy or successful; you examine whether their success is real, relevant, repeatable, and attributable to the methods they’re recommending. Can their results be independently verified? Did they consistently achieve them? Can they explain the process that produced them? Do they actually make sense or something is lacking? Life isn’t that simple, but it isn’t complicated either. You can’t always know in advance who is genuinely competent or whose advice will work you have to evaluate the available evidence, make a judgment, and sometimes be wrong. The important thing is to learn from the outcomes and update your judgment rather than pretending you can eliminate uncertainty completely. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 2:46am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/68 "2026-09-17T02:46:53Z")
Sure, I guess my point is that if we are going to cite expertise as an important source, then we need to set out what counts as expertise, since the world is saturated with experts and self-appointed authorities who often have enormous influence and cause harm. It’s not clear to many people how to go about determining whose advice will be useful. I count myself in thsi category. ---
**Author:** ![Elephant](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/elephant/32/294_2.png) [@Elephant](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Elephant)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 3:39am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/69 "2026-09-17T03:39:40Z")
This is an age old objection against expertise. MDs or physicians are experts by earning this distinction through education and licensing. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2026, 4:14pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/70 "2026-09-17T16:14:02Z")
> [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > …the world is saturated with experts and self-appointed authorities who often have enormous influence and cause harm. No it isn’t, although such fake ‘experts’ do exist. Most experts have earned that moniker by training, education, and experience. For example, I am an expert in software design. [There are many other such experts in my profession, and my expert opinions do not invalidate theirs. That’s how it works, I think?] But please don’t expect my expertise to make my opinions outside of software design any more valuable than those of any NON-expert. That’s how it works, I think? ---
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 3:38am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/71 "2026-09-18T03:38:41Z")
> [@Astorre](#): > > In my view, what we need is not so much reliable data or information, but rather a reliable way to direct our biased perspective toward identifying the flaws in our own convictions. Critically examining our convictions won’t rescue us from false information. True clarity requires reliable data if the information we’re using is false or unreliable, critically examining our convictions can still lead us to the wrong conclusion ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 7:04am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/72 "2026-09-18T07:04:22Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > No it isn’t, although such fake ‘experts’ do exist. I guess we disagree on this then. 😉 And they aren’t necessarily fake, just the usual plethora of wankers who charge for their opinions and advice. The immense industry of experts, specialists, and strategists for hire in health, law, heritage architecture, community policy, psychosocial safety, work cover insurance, advocacy, and strategic growth is among the largest industries there is. I deal with a lot of them on a regular basis. And you can’t really tell who is legit until after the report comes back. And much of the time, it’s a series of motherhood statements and clichés. Not fake, not terrible, just another case of banal “cut-and-paste” expertise that isn’t worth a shit and can set back all your work to date. ---
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 7:10am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/73 "2026-09-18T07:10:20Z")
> [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > And they aren’t necessarily fake, just the usual plethora of wankers who charge for their opinions and advice. I’m not saying you should trust people 100% of the time, so I agree with you. But when you need advice on a subject, would you trust a random person or an expert who has spent years studying it and has the qualifications or proof to demonstrate their expertise? The existence of fake experts doesn’t mean you should choose random people over experts. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 7:24am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/74 "2026-09-18T07:24:05Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > But would you take advice from a random person about a subject over an actual expert? Aren’t you asking me a question about my previous reply to you, this reply is about a different matter from Pattern? I’m pretty sure I’ve already agreed with the idea that expertise is better than no expertise in most instances. But you still haven’t answered the more important question of what makes someone an expert. A while ago you made the point that it is better to get money advice from a millionaire than a broke Reddit wanker. I don’t know if this is accurate. Being a millionaire is not expertise. It doesn’t tell you anything about skill or integrity. It could even be the case that the Reddit wanker has better advice. So how do we determine expertise? It isn’t simply a track record of doing something successfully. That’s the superficial first step. > [@LordKing777](#): > > The existence of fake experts doesn’t mean you should choose random people over experts. No one has made this point, and I don’t know why you would make it. The salient issue is: how do we choose an expert among other experts? ---
**Author:** ![LordKing777](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/lordking777/32/1368_2.png) [@LordKing777](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/LordKing777)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 8:29am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/75 "2026-09-18T08:29:04Z")
> [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > how do we choose an expert among other experts? Actually, you’re talking about a general skill: the ability to distinguish between experts and determine who is actually more reliable.It requires judgment, critical thinking, recognizing competence, comparing track records, understanding the relevant field, and knowing what evidence actually matters and of course the willing to be wrong because you won’t pick the best experts from the first time ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 9:37am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/76 "2026-09-18T09:37:17Z")
> [@LordKing777](#): > > Actually, you’re talking about a general skill: the ability to distinguish between experts and determine who is actually more reliable. No, this is a specialised skill and people struggle to do it well. Generally (in my experience) it’s word of mouth and good references that may settle the matter. That, and the price. But it depends on what kind of expertise we’re talking about, right? Selecting a mechanic for a Jaguar XJ-S V12 is a different, more practical task than selecting an expert advocacy consultant to launch a social justice campaign aimed at changing local government legislation. > [@LordKing777](#): > > It requires judgment, critical thinking, recognizing competence, comparing track records, understanding the relevant field, and knowing what evidence actually matters. Ok, but you’re now talking about a process, and that doesn’t really answer the question of what attributes you’re looking for. To say selection requires judgement, critical thinking and recognising competence doesn’t really advance the case. What is it that your judgement, your critical thinking and your recognition of competence are seeking to identify? In your work, how often have you had to select an expert, what process do you use, and what do you look for? > [@LordKing777](#): > > of course the willing to be wrong because you won’t pick the best experts from the first time Perhaps sometimes. But experts are expensive and often you only have one shot at getting something right. There might be a lot at stake. But given this is a philosophy site, a better question might be: which experts do we take notice of when determining whether idealism provides an adequate account of the nature of reality? I’d have to say, I’m fucked if I know. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2026, 3:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/77 "2026-09-18T15:23:43Z")
> [@Tom\_Storm](#): > > > [@PatternChaser](#): > > > > No it isn’t, although such fake ‘experts’ do exist. > > I guess we disagree on this then. 😉 > > And they aren’t necessarily fake, just the usual plethora of wankers who charge for their opinions and advice. The immense industry of experts, specialists, and strategists for hire in health, law, heritage architecture, community policy, psychosocial safety, work cover insurance, advocacy, and strategic growth is among the largest industries there is. I deal with a lot of them on a regular basis. > > And you can’t really tell who is legit until after the report comes back. And much of the time, it’s a series of motherhood statements and clichés. Not fake, not terrible, just another case of banal “cut-and-paste” expertise that isn’t worth a shit and can set back all your work to date. All true. And yet, no individual can know about everything, so we have to trust someone… 🤷 ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Storm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@Tom\_Storm](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Tom_Storm)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2026, 12:28am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/78 "2026-09-19T00:28:55Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > so we have to trust someone… 🤷 Sure do. And I do too. I’d hate to inhabit a world with no experts. ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 10:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/79 "2026-09-30T22:02:40Z")
> [@Mijin1](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > What is the ‘this’ word here referring to, exactly? > > The thread topic. Trusting unreliable sources. Great, and let us not forget that NO one trusts “unreliable sources”. Let us not forget that the term and phrase “unreliable source” is highly subjective, and that the biggest threat to humankind may well be ‘subjectivity’ itself. See, what you consider as ‘an unreliable source’ differs very widely from what another considers as 'an unreliable source. So, which is an ‘unreliable’ and an ‘unreliable’ source, exactly? Obviously, until unanimous agreement is reached, humankind could be destined for destruction, annihilation, and/or extinction. > [@Mijin1](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > By the way, instead of ignoring the ‘genuine problems’ here, in a philosophy forum, would you like to present and acknowledge the ‘genuine problems’ for ‘us’ here, so that ‘we’ can solve them, together, or for you? > > I don’t know why you’re taking such a tone and putting things in quotes etc. I am not sure how you can hear ‘a tone’ when all that is before you are printed words on a screen. I suggest reading from an open perspective and not a closed, narrowed, prejudicial, or presuming perspective. And, I can let you know the reasons why I put specific words in quotes if you would like to know. I found when people really want to know things, then they ask questions, for clarity sake. > [@Mijin1](#): > > From my previous post it’s pretty obvious what I mean by genuine problems because I said, for example, that disinformation is leading people to ignore or handwave issues like climate change. But you seem to be missing the point that ‘disinformation’, to you, is ‘information’ to another, and what is ‘information’, to you, is ‘disinformation’ to another. So, when you say that “disinformation is leading people to ignore or handwave issues like climate change”, which “side” are you speaking from, exactly? People see “sides” here, and people on both perceived “sides” can say the exact same thing that you just have. > [@Mijin1](#): > > The obvious implication is that I consider climate change to be a genuine problem. So, what you are essentially saying here is that what you, personally, perceive as ‘a problem’ is a ‘genuine problem’. Are you aware that others do not see what you see? And, what you see as a ‘genuine problem’ others do not see as any problem at all, and vice versa. > [@Mijin1](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > But lying is being stupid, and not smart at all. > > By what logic? My own view is that lying is not necessarily smart or stupid; there are different levels of lying, from the clumsy to the calculated (this is all putting the morality aside for the moment; I’m not advocating that anyone should lie). Why not? If lying, to you, is neither necessarily smart nor stupid, then why not advocate for lying? > [@Mijin1](#): > > Being able to _work out when you’re being lied to_ has the closer correlation with intelligence, ‘Closer correlation with intelligence’ compared to ‘what’, exactly? > [@Mijin1](#): > > and is the factor that the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis is mostly concerned with. If you say so, then okay. > [@Mijin1](#): > > In the modern world though, I’d say our instinctive ability to discern lies has largely been steamrolled by advances in communication techniques and technology. What would that matter? If lying is neither smart nor stupid, to you, what does it matter if and when you are being lied to or if and when you lie to others, exactly? > [@Mijin1](#): > > We now need to explicitly learn critical thinking principles, lest we be like a windows 7 computer with no antivirus connecting to the internet. Have you yet learned full critical thinking skills? ---
**Author:** ![ages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@ages](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/ages)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 10:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023/80 "2026-09-30T22:20:08Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > > [@PatternChaser](#): > > > > > > > [@ages](#): > > > > > > > > HOW is ‘objectivity’ recognised, realised, or known, exactly? > > > > > > In practice, in the real world, it isn’t, and probably can’t be. > > > > Is ‘this’ an objective claim or another subjective claim? > > Also, what do you mean by ‘real world’, exactly? What is the so-called ‘real world’ relative or comparative to, exactly? > > I’m sorry, but it seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse, for reasons that I cannot fathom or follow. So, you make a claim. I just ask you some clarifying questions about ‘your claim’. you do not provide any answers nor clarification at all, but ‘I’ am the one now claimed to be ‘deliberately obtuse’. If you are not able to explain or clarify ‘your claims’, then who is ‘the one’ who is so-called “obtuse”, exactly? OBVIOUSLY, ‘your claim’ that "in the real world ‘objectivity’ is not recognised, realised, nor known is your own personal subjective view and claim. OBVIOUSLY, ‘your claim’ is NOT an objective view and claim. Why not just be open and honest and answer directly, instead of being “so obtuse” here? > [@PatternChaser](#): > > for reasons that I cannot fathom or follow. And so on, for most of the rest of your post. If you were not so “obtuse”, and answered Honestly, then could fathom and follow. And so on, for the rest of my post. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > You seem to be intentionally-unaware of the commonly-used and -accepted definitions of words that are common in philosophical discourse, if nowhere else. If you don’t know or use the vocabulary, how will anyone else understand? you have shown and proved that you do not know the commonly-used- and -accepted definitions of words that are common in philosophical discourse. Imagine not knowing whether ones own view and claim is a ‘subjective one’ or an ‘objective one’. Also, imagine mentioning and talking about some so-called ‘real world’, but when asked to just explain and clarify what you are talking about, you are not able to provide any clarification at all. Thus, showing that you are unaware of any used definition, let alone the so-called ‘commonly used and accepted definition’, which is ‘common in philosophical discourse’. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > > [@ages](#): > > > > Are ‘you’ open to the idea that there might just be an actual way to see ‘Reality’ as It actually **is**? > > I’m always open to any possibility that cannot be refuted or disproven. ‘We’ will soon see. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > But I am unaware of any such thing, nor can I imagine how such a thing could be. EVERY human being is/was unaware of some things, and that you ‘currently’ cannot imagine such a thing never ever means that ‘that thing’ does not exist. Now, there is ‘a way’ to ‘look at’ and ‘see’ ‘Reality’ Itself, as It actually is. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023.md?page=3) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-problem-with-trusting-unreliable-sources/3023.md?page=5)