Whenever I have questions, my primary and preferred course of action is always to attempt to determine their answers on my own. The natural progression intrinsic to this method – from exploration to discovery to understanding – has long proven to be of both deep and broad benefit. It not only internalizes and commits to memory those unique conclusions drawn throughout the process, but also, with practice, allows for the recognition of distinct conceptual structures, pathways, and patterns that are oftentimes applicable across a wide range of seemingly unrelated disciplines.

If, however, I find that I lack the specific knowledge or general aptitude necessary to proceed with confidence, I must at that point seek out external sources to provide additional information. But to whom should one turn for those pivotal pieces needed to complete the puzzle? Who actually knows what they are talking about and can offer factually correct answers to my questions? Likewise, who can even be trusted to relay this information in an honest and accurate manner? Because ultimately it is not the information, but rather the source itself which must pass through these two fundamental filters of knowledgeability and trustworthiness.

For what good is a source of information that lacks one of these? On the one hand, an educated entity could well know the correct answer, and yet, whether selfishly or maliciously, choose to withhold it from you regardless. On the other hand, the professing party could well believe in the accuracy and truthfulness of their assertions, and yet, whether through mistake or misguidance, be supplying you with faulty information nonetheless.