The key here is to ask for evidence from experts, then weigh the evidence for oneself, as such arrive at either of reasoned agreement or reasoned disagreement.
The goal is to respond intellectually, as opposed to emotionally, to the evidence. The problem, of course is that society has been beguiled into living emotionally, as opposed to intellectually.
Whenever a society lives emotionally, a Presidential candidate can be appreciated, because he or she is fun to take selfies with, and can dance. Intellectually, however, should a person ever be disqualified from being the best candidate for President because he or she does not feel free enough to dance on a stage, or is unable to put up a fun face for a selfie? What have those two things got to do with knowing what to do to fix a country, and having the temerity to get those things done?
Would any ordinary resident or citizen prefer a president who makes him or her feel good over coffee, but who leaves societal problems of concern unsolved, to one who is not available for coffee, but solves problems?
An expert is an expert (a truism), only because he or she has developed capacity for producing of evidence in support of actions, which are expected to facilitate resolving of challenges that face society in different facets of life.
So then, every opinion on societal issues proffered by an expert ought to be backed up by some evidence, else it is personal, as opposed to expert opinion.
In society’s new found tendency not to demand evidence from 'Ivy League' experts — forgetting that with most of their funding coming from the rich and corporations, their incentives might be skewed, or their perspectives might be distorted — clearly society plays with fire.
It is a truism that whenever people play with fire🔥that they tend to get burnt.
Enjoyed your post.