from home on the internet.

Unless the meanings of "credible" and "evidence" are somewhat fluid, I suppose (as the article suggests wrt to credible)...

It's been my observation that folks will readily believe something that fits their world view and dismiss out of hand anything that challenges that view.

than skepticism. To just respond, "Okay" takes less effort than to say, "Hey, wait a minute, how do you know that's true?" Explains a lot about modern-day journalism, I suppose. To really debunk something takes concerted research, looking up the facts, double-checking sources, and actively seeking out other reports on the subject.

People just don't have enough time and energy to go through that for every damn thing, including important things like whether a wall can stop illegal immigration and if illegal Mexican immigrants really are pouring across our southern border and raping Americans as they go. Some guy said so, and said he read it in an article, and the Chinese once built a wall that worked so well it's still called The Great Wall. Do I really need to search online to try to verify any of this? If you do, you find out it's all bullshit. Well, the Chinese did build a really long wall. But it didn't save them from the Mongols. (Later, the Ming dynasty repaired a section of it to protect them from the Manchus. One guess who conquered the Ming dynasty.)

Anyway, trusting what you hear takes so much less energy it leaves you plenty of extra energy to beat up dissenters.